Why are only queer rights on the chopping block?
| June 16th, 2005Over on Family Scholar’s Blog, Elizabeth writes:
If the state says marriage is just between two people that’s a fundamentally different understanding of marriage, one that affirms loud and clear that children do not necessarily need their mother and father. [...] then the idea that children need their mother and father becomes not something supported and affirmed by the state, but instead a marginalized idea, declared off-sides from secular debate. The result? More children growing up without their own mother and father, and exposed to the risks and losses that come with it.
The truth is, our society regularly and routinely accepts that not every child needs their own mother and father. Divorce is legal even for parents with young children. Single parenthood is legal; no law forces heterosexual parents to marry, and no law forces parents to live with or even know their child, so long as its physical needs are provided for. There used to be laws and traditions punishing single mothers and their bastard children, but I assume you’re not wanting those punitive measures reinstated. Sperm donation is legal, and so is egg donation (Elizabeth may want these procedures banned). There is absolutely no legal barrier preventing capable parents from giving up their kids for adoption, if the parents want to.
In short, under our current system, there is barely any legal practice implying that “children do not necessarily need their [biological] mother and father” that is not legal and acceptable - except, of course, for same-sex marriage. Why is it acceptable to single out same-sex couples and punish them, and them only, in order to send a pro-mom-and-dad message?
No matter how you sugar-coat it, your arguments imply that it’s acceptable to consider same-sex couples and their children tools used to benefit heterosexuals. The idea that the well-being and legal equalities of queers and their children are worth supporting in their own right - rather than just garbage to be thrown away whenever, in some dubious and unproven theory, denying them equality assists heterosexual families - is completely absent from your arguments.
Children of same-sex couples are not tools used to benefit heterosexual families.
Lesbians are not tools to be used to benefit heterosexual families.
Gays are not tools to be used to benefit heterosexual families.
How many times do we have to repeat this before SSM opponents get the message? Get it so completely so that they don’t just agree in words, but so that they stop making arguments based on the unspoken premise that any amount of harm to queers and their families, however extreme, is justified by the prevention of any theoretical harm to a heterosexual, however small?
If the state says marriage is just between two people that’s a fundamentally different understanding of marriage, one that affirms loud and clear that children do not necessarily need their mother and father.
I’m skeptical of the “hey, kids, let’s send a message!” approach to lawmaking. The idea that equality matters so little that it should be circular-filed so that Elizabeth and her allies can send a pro-mom-and-dad telegram is not persuasive to me.
But let’s accept for a moment that laws send a message. What message is sent by keeping marriage cross-sex only? Refusing to allow same-sex marriages “affirms loud and clear” that heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals as human beings, and that the children raised by same-sex couples are bastards, low things who deserve lesser rights and lesser protections. What effect will that message have on children raised in same-sex households? (Judging by what they write, when Elizabeth and her allies say “think about the best interests of children,” they are refering only to children raised by heterosexuals).
Elizabeth, I don’t oppose your goal of seeing more children raised by their own mom and dad. I don’t have any emotional attachment to that model, but I think social science indicates that for most children it’s probably the best way to be raised (assuming that the parents are loving, that there’s no abuse, etc). But there are so many ways to support and encourage mom-dad families that don’t involve making common cause with the worse, most hateful homophobes in the nation, and attacking the civil rights of a group of people who have already been under attack for decades and decades.
The fact that divorce rates nationwide have gone down even as homosexuals have reached a level of acceptance never before seen in the USA, is clear evidence that the goal of equality and the goals of the marriage movement do not have to be in opposition.
You wouldn’t support bringing back the traditional marriage in which husbands are the owners and controllers of all their wives’s property - even though such a change might lower the divorce rate, and thus raise the odds of children raised by mom and dad. You wouldn’t support benning cross-racial or cross-religion marriage - even though such laws might reduce the divorce rate and thus raise the odds of children raised by mom and dads.
Why is it that only same-sex parents’ rights are disposable in this battle of yours? When are you going to put your own rights on the chopping block, rather than demanding that families that already have so much less privilege than your own be the ones sacrificed to benefit families that look like your own?
…that affirms loud and clear that children do not necessarily need their mother and father.
And that should be affirmed loud and clear, because it is the truth. Children do not necessarily need their own mothers and fathers.
The vast majority of individual children do need their moms and dads, of course; and I’m happy to support non-bigoted policies to encourage and support such households.
But some children get along just fine with a mom and a mom, or a dad and a dad. There are plenty of well-adjusted children of same-sex couples who are no more neurotic or suffering from angst than the rest of us are, and you constantly try to make them invisible in your approach to discussing these issues. What’s best for “most” is not what’s best for “all.” Why is admitting that not all households are, or should be, identical so threatening to you?
June 16th, 2005 at 10:56 pm
How many times do we have to repeat this before SSM opponents get the message?
They already have the message. I’m going to assume Elizabeth is not stupid. Therefore she is able to grasp that children are not crippled by having same-sex parents, and that the law in fact is about two people who want to marry, and has severed married from the necessity of childbearing. It’s not really about making sure every child has their biological parents married and present; if it were, she would be pushing to roll back the marriage clock.
Since she is not stupid and is able to grasp that her arguments fall flat, given the current state of marriage, I would have to assume she is dishonest. The fear is not that children will be miserable. It’s that gender roles are crucial to child development, and that queers can’t be any sort of decent parent to a child.
I wish she’d drop the pretentious crap and admit she’s a homophobe.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 12:26 am
What’s best for “most”? is not what’s best for “all.”?
What if the former goal is achievable, or at least feasible - while the latter is not?
Consider - there is a population of Americans out there -I’d number them around 20 million - who are fundamentalist Christians so devout that some of them have already cut themselves off from contact with the larger culture. Many more of them find the idea tempting. There’s a “penumbral” group around these folks; people who aren’t part of this very orthodox group but who respect and pay attention to what it does. (I’m personally somewhere on the outer fringe of that group.) Who knows how many are in that group; they don’t have a newsletter. Call them the Really Serious Christians. Or fundelicals or Republitoids or whatever the buzzword is today. Around them is a larger group, not really committed but sometimes influenced by the Evil Secular Elite ™, sometimes by us good guys.
(Yeah, this is Manichean in its oversimplicity, to say the least; but it’s Amp’s bandwidth bill, and I hear his income from running Mexican heroin has dried up. I gotta leave a lot of stuff out. If you have to, just imagine that every lacunae in my argument is replaced with me spewing angry denunciations of puppies.)
There are a lot of social policies that this somewhat substantial, though by no means majoritarian, bloc of the citizenry simply will not accept.
So on a “social balancesheet”, the kinds of laws you would like to see governing family law, same sex marriage, adoption, etc. would be perceived by that group as detrimental to their happiness, just as it would be perceived by you and your lot as beneficial to your happiness. (I recall attending the celebration of some mutual friends at Oberlin for their joining ceremony; being accepted by their peers gave them great joy, and acceptance by the larger society would give them greater joy still; hard currency in the world of utility.)
The laws and shifts in cultural expectations you want would bring joy to a small but not insignificant minority, and pain to another small but not insignificant minority. That you don’t consider the grounds for their pain to be important doesn’t change its existence. After all, as your sides’ general rhetoric states, we fundie zealots don’t care about how you feel - and your pain is certainly real.
In addition to the purely subjective emotional pains, your side has material considerations that speak to its cause. People are denied the right to live as they wish, they cannot get hospital rights, there are legal impediments, issues involving children are basically nightmarish, and so on. This is all extremely real and the amount of pain and violation incurred is substantial, very substantial.
The viewpoint of the fundamentalists also puts a claim on real dislocation and conflict. The day after Amp rubs the lantern and gets a wish and suddenly the legal and social framework in America changes radically, a big chunk of the populace starts buying cabins and subscribing to windpower magazines. You may not think this likely; neither did Pharoah. And of course there are a lot of less-drastic actions that people who feel alienated and betrayed by their culture will take. (Peaceful actions.) The ramifications of that kind of disruption would be of similar magnitude to those encountered by gays and other non-traditional family organizations now.
So, we have a bit of a conundrum here. There are two groups of people, and there really isn’t any way for their interests to both be satisfied. Most of the issues are too basic to be compromised; they go to worldviews and eschatological beliefs, not quarrels over which field belongs to which peasant. Further, the magnitudes and vectors of their various claims on society are broadly similar, from my admittedly biased perspective. There are a lot of eggs in this omelette, no matter who gets broken or why.
Federalism, real, actual breathing federalism, the kind where Iowa and New Jersey are like alien planets, seems to me to be the only real solution. Federalism is, of course, a “best for most” situation. It still sucks to be a pierced trisexual in Larrysville, pop. 1347. Gay polyspouses from Idaho might come in for a shock in the real South Park. But as time is allowed to work its automatic redistributive magic, and as strong federalism makes it worthwhile to actually move, the numerical magnitude of “most” would start to get a lot better.
I don’t know how to get there. There is almost no effective communication between the two polar camps, and no communication means no cooperation.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 12:43 am
There’s a second part to this issue, and that is the fact that marriage is not solely about children. The arguments made above would be better suited to supporting a ban on gays becming foster and adoptive parents–that IS truly a parent-child issue. Marriage, however, is also (and to many people, first and foremost) a couple issue. I’ve never heard anyone suggest that childless couples should be banned from marrying, or that infertile people should be required by law to adopt or have their marriage declared invalid. And if marriage were truly only about children, then what are such protections as hospital visitation rights tied to marriage for? (Now who’s redefining marriage?)
There are a lot of people for whom being legally recognized as a couple is the reason they want to be married. They deserve better than to have their happiness and equality threatened by an argument that doesn’t affect them.
This comment was written by Kyra.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 3:23 am
When you say
I fear you assume too much.
This comment was written by Jillian.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 4:32 am
The reason is quite simple — these people are bigots. The arguments they muster are a camoflage so that they can pretend that they have a rational basis for their bigotry. Personally, I find them much more despicable than the Fred Phelps of this world. At least he is honest about his hate.
Shorter Robert: we can’t always get what we want.
Well yes, Robert that’s true; it’s always been true. The whites in the South didn’t think that blacks ought to be able to vote, go to school with them, or use the same bathrooms. I know integration was painful for them but there would be few civil rights if that were all the justiication needed to deny them.
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 4:53 am
Thanks Kyra, I was going to bring that up too.
But also, I wanted to critique Amp’s point of social science showing that children do better by being raised ‘by their own mom and dad’ (all other things being equal).
Actually, social science DOESN’T show this. All the research shows that while there are different family forms and some do better than others, those that have a two parent household (regardless of gender) generally have about the same outcomes in parenting.
Of course, and I think you agree with this Amp, demographic trends in variations of parenting abilities or outcomes certainly aren’t used to deny people the ability to parent (unless of course their parenting is that horrific) so no-one could logically argue to apply on the individual level what demographics may show. Going from the general case to the individual case rigidly, universally fails.
Oh, and Robert, I was impressed with your argument. Yes, on the issues on ‘interest’ and ‘happiness’ majority rule should occur. I totally agree, and honestly, with your case for federalism in such a diversely cultural place as the US (yes, the world is officially ending right now *smile*). However, this is not simply about interests or happiness, this is about rights. I know you may disagree with me on this point, but for argument’s sake, let take that it is. Rights have tended to trump majority opinion in this country (although, admittedly, this has more so been the case in the last century or less) and honestly, I think civil rights SHOULD trump the wishes of others. If they want a country where everyone is equal and be proud of such, then they are going to have to take the good shit with the bad shit (from their perspective) that arises therefrom. They can’t have their cake and eat it too (always thought that was a bad metaphor, but I’ll use it here). Moreover, me having the right to marry DOESN’T EFFECT THEM, in any other way than pushing their ‘ick’ factor a few times (and honestly, conservative straight christians having sex is kinda not high on my list of things I want to see, but hey, I’m not going to stop their perverted little boinking *smile*).
But yeah, as Kyra said though, marriage isn’t about children. This trumps it all, especially Elizabeth’s refuted wishes to remain as god-king/queen on the family-form heap.
Oh, and she won’t listen Amp. This isn’t about logic, as we have it on our side, or emotion, which we do too, or similarly humanity. This is about homophobia and bigotry and honestly feeling that you are better than others. That won’t listen to reason.
This comment was written by Sarah in Chicago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 5:07 am
True, you can’t always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need. Oh yeah…
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 6:18 am
Not only is Elizabeth M a heterosexist, she’s also continualy implying that GLBT couples are inferior as parents
The whole “children need mothers and fathers” line is bad statistical manipulation created by Maggie Gallagher, who uses the model of inner city children who grow up with only one parent, and applys that to choldren growing up in same sex households. Because, they’re the same after all. Right?
It’s total bullshit, and she’s never conducted any real studies on children growing up in same sex households because it’s in her best interests not to. Elizabeth will continue to use these bullshit statistics as if they meant something because the battle cry “children need mothers and fathers” is an easy meme that requires no thought before it’s digested by the masses. It’s an effective political slogan, so the truth is irrelevant
The real truth is, we’ve got no real proof that children raised by same sex couples do worse, and some reasonably, but slightly flawed studies that indicate that they do just the same.
The whole ‘protect the children’ argument against SSM is bullshit, and it’s easily disproven.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 6:21 am
This is what I wrote in response to Elizabeth’s post:
But in the US law and religion agreed that marriage is a union of one man and one woman.
Well, the law in the State of Massachusetts says that marriage is a union of two people. But I assume you know this and were just ignoring it. Religion in the US says a vast number of different things about marriage, from “marriage is a union of one man with up to four women”, to “marriage is a union of two people who love each other”. But I assume you know this, too, and were just ignoring it.
If the state says marriage is just between two people that’s a fundamentally different understanding of marriage, one that affirms loud and clear that children do not necessarily need their mother and father.
As you observed in the preceding sentence, the majority of US states (well, you said “US law”) does in fact say “marriage is just between two people”. The only question is whether those two people have to be of different genders or can be of the same gender. So, the “fundamentally different understanding of marriage” is the fundamentally different understanding that you accepted yourself in the first sentence, only to contradict yourself in this sentence. Odd, that.
one that affirms loud and clear that children do not necessarily need their mother and father.
Actually, it does nothing of the kind. Marriage law in the US has never been dependent on whether the two people getting married can have children, let alone whether either or both of them already have children, or either or both of them have a child with another sexual partner after marriage. Literally, never, ever. You are coming from a fundamentally different understanding of marriage law in the US if you think it does. (Religion is another matter. I would not be surprised if some religions in the US do believe that a marriage isn’t a true marriage unless both partners can and do have children.)
But there are aplenty of other laws in the US - and always have been - that affirm loud and clear that children do not necessarily need their mother and father.
You do seem to find yourself fundamentally at odds with the legal system of the US when you make these wild and unsubstantiated claims.
It is a fact that people who want to claim that same-sex couples and their children are not real families, and who do so not by referring directly to bigotry but by trying to set up a definition of what a “real” family is that will exclude all families with same-sex couples parenting children, find themselves with a definition that excludes many, many other families, too. Really, it’s just simpler to say that parents and children make a family. Period.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 6:50 am
That you don’t consider the grounds for their pain to be important doesn’t change its existence.
It does, however, affect whether or not the law should take their pain into account. If someone’s pain is entirely due to their own prejudices and completely unjustified, then no, they are not entitled to have the law cater to that pain. Interracial marriages caused (and in some cases still cause) a hell of a lot of emotional distress to some people. Tough.
This comment was written by Linnet.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 7:23 am
Strictly speaking, I did not make that point at all. In fact, yesterday in the comments on Elizabeth’s blog, I made virtually the same point you made here: Social Science research doesn’t provide any evidence at all that same-sex parents are worse parents.
As I wrote in this post, “I think social science indicates that for most children [own mom and dad is] probably the best way to be raised.” The reason I specified “most” - meaning “not all” - is because I wanted to leave room for the minority of children being raised by same-sex parents, as well as other possible exceptions to the rule.
However, in retrospect, I obviously wasn’t clear enough. Sorry about that.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 7:31 am
oh, I get you now hon, I see where we got kerfuzzled … thanks Amp, and yes, I certainly agree :)
This comment was written by Sarah in Chicago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 7:34 am
Robert, my tendency is to discount any “purely subjective emotional pain” that people experience as a result of someone else having freedom that doesn’t directly, materially infringe on their own freedom.
For example, it wouldn’t matter to me how much emotional pain it caused a hypothetical group of extreme fundimentalist atheists to know that Christians are free to go to church and worship on Sundays. No amount of athiest pain of that sort, no matter how extreme, would justify taking away freedom of worship from Christians. The athiests in my example will either have to live with their pain or change how they think.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 7:49 am
Robert writes, in a clever and witty comment:
“The day after Amp rubs the lantern and gets a wish and suddenly the legal and social framework in America changes radically, a big chunk of the populace starts buying cabins and subscribing to windpower magazines. ”
Honestly, I really don’t think this is all that likely (and hey, I’m a big fan of people buying cabins and subscibing to windpower magazines, so I would view it as a positive development!). My 2c? The overwhelming majority of these groups would just complain. A small-ish group would choose to demonstrate, etc, as is their right and privilage, another small group would take to the hills, and a very, very few would commit violent acts and hopefully be jailed. Eventually the ones motivated by (understandable) fear of change and honest concern for families would realize that the world had yet to fall apart, while the % of hardcore bigots would probably decrease in each generation.
Things already said above that I wanted to say
The pain being inflicted upon the anti-gay-families folks is the horrible pain of other people getting to do things they shouldn’t think should be allowed, with little or no concrete and material effect on them. The pain being inflicted on the pro-gay-family-folks - especially the ones directly involved - is the pain of being not getting to do things, not getting to enter into certain relationships, etc.
And I want to add my voice to the chorus of - how would your well-stated argument *not* apply to segregation, slavery, feminism, etc? I assume in terms of magnitude?
This comment was written by Dan S..Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 8:16 am
There are a lot of social policies that this somewhat substantial, though by no means majoritarian, bloc of the citizenry simply will not accept.
We have a Bill of Rights in part for just this reason.
Nonacceptance, and social groups deciding to go pout and go home, is not a good argument for tossing out others’ rights or ignoring existing law.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 8:19 am
Thanks for this post, Amp. I give Elizabeth the benefit of the doubt on a lot of things because I believe her when she says her positions are not a product of animus, but this whole house-of-cards argument relating to people not getting married because the gays get married and children of lesbians deciding men are irrelevant is just too much. If there was a single shred of evidence to support this parade of horribles, I’d love to see it.
Even if we assumed that young men were so influenced by the gays that they modeled their personal lives and behaviors after them, the parade of horribles assumes there are no other influences available in society to counteract the 1% of marriages involving same-sex couples. Do these kids of lesbians not know any heterosexuals? Do they not watch any tv or pick up any newspapers?
And has the influence of the queers become some omnipresent that young people are unable to evaluate the merits of marriage and having children in the context of heterosexuality. Why is it the gays are able to apply societal messages to their own lives, yet heterosexuals faced with a miniscule number of gay marriages are completely unable to apply societal messages to their lives????????????
This comment was written by Res Ipsa.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 8:42 am
I left a bit out. My reason for bringing in the emotional pain &c of the fundamentalists wasn’t really to say that this pain should trump the civil rights of other citizens, it was to argue against the idea that expanding civil rights wouldn’t be a solution that works for everyone, as Amp was saying. (In the what’s best for most vs. what’s best for all paragraph.) There isn’t a solution that’s best for all, only a choice between scenarios that will provide a “best” for varying groups of “most”.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 9:00 am
because I believe her when she says her positions are not a product of animus
Well, sure. They could be a product of sexism, or of country-club homophobhia. (She doesn’t think gays are evil, but they certainly oughtn’t to sit up front with the rest of us.)
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 9:19 am
because I believe her when she says her positions are not a product of animus
Most bigots don’t think they are bigotted. There is something obviously something wrong in those things/people they find objectionable and it’s just amazing that no-one else gets what is so amazingly apparent to them. And/or they will conjure up or find some excessively obscure research to justfy their bigotry: “See? It’s not me! It’s the research that says so!”
(Personally I love the ones that say “civil unions are okay, but marriage isn’t”. So I’m supposed to be happy that they see themselves as not quite a bigotted as the others? Because I should just shut up and be thankful for being thrown the table-scraps?)
Witness anti-feminist men that blame feminists for ‘attacking’ them, or white racists that think that they are being held back by pro-ethnic-minority strategies, or religious fundamentalists who think their religion is being repressed when it’s placed on the same level as any other religion or spirituality. Of course they aren’t bigotted; they’re the victims here, they’re the one’s being hurt!
This comment was written by Sarah in Chicago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 9:22 am
My sense is Elizabeth is an absolutist who focuses solely on her perceptions of the problems in marriage and for children. It’s a rather noble position and I don’t think she is driven by animus, just absolutism. That doesn’t mean that homophobia doesn’t play a role, just a homophobia plays a role for the views of most people. . . even those posting here.
This comment was written by Res Ipsa.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 9:31 am
“Lack of animus” does not mean lack of bigotry. Where, after all, do those ‘perceptions’ come from? Not from the actual research, that’s for sure. Not from a consistent view of the structure or history of legal marriage.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 9:35 am
Unless she is proposing strictures on which heterosexuals can have children and denying marriage to people who don’t choose to have kids, then she is a bigot who is trying to pretend not to be one by cloaking her bigotry behind seemingly reasonable statistical studies. As far the impartiality of statistical studies, it’s rather instructive to see the ones from the early 20th century that showed that Jewish immigrants were more likely to be mental defectives and thus shouldn’t be admitted to the country.
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 9:39 am
We can agree to disagree. I don’t believe it is helpful to label everyone who disagrees with me or my positions a bigot because I recognize we are all bigots to some extent pretty much all of our interactions are influenced by some level of bigotry. I think the undercurrent of her parade of horribles is soceital homophobia, but I am not convinced that is primary motivation.
This comment was written by Res Ipsa.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 10:00 am
Actually, Robert, I think legalizing gay marriage, etc. *is* a solution that’s best for everyone. The antis get to relish their pain, sense of alienation, embattled minority status, etc. Otherwise it would be like opening up the newspaper and finding only things you agree with on the op-ed pages. I always need extra coffee when that happens . . .
This comment was written by Dan S..Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 10:25 am
Of course not everybody who disagrees with a position is a bigot but if someone wishes to deny a civil right to a group by applying a standard that is not applied to any other group holding that same right, it’s pretty hard to see it as anything but prejudice.
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 10:44 am
I don’t believe it is helpful to label everyone who disagrees with me or my positions a bigot
Elizabeth is not “everyone who disagrees with me or my positions.” I don’t believe it is helpful to soft-pedal people who are motivated by prejudice because, gosh, nobody’s perfect.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 10:50 am
Lots of bigots try to park their prejudice in “scientific” observation. Nobody (certainly not a well-educated social scientist) wants to be viewed as spouting irrational nonsense. And protecting “the children” is a time honored noble undertaking that is probably about as safe a place as any to hide one’s bigotry (similar to, I don’t know, rationalizing school and other segregation on the grounds that it protects the virtue of white Southern women). But the fact that Elizabeth has chosen to focus her energies where she has belies protests of not bing bigotted or bearing animus or what have you. Choosing to obsess about the “message” that society sends to “the children” by extending rights to a small group of individuals is almost bizarre in its ability to tune out the maelstrom of cultural and lifestyle forces that have been and still are eroding the stability of all kinds of traditional family supports. Divorce, for instance. Or loss of worker protections. Or the fact that credit card debts now have priority over the payment of child and custody support, thanks to our family friendly president.
I lived in North Carolina for four years, and the KKK, insofar as it was still active, focused on the loss of jobs in the textile industry by whites to blacks, at the same time that thousands upon thousands of these jobs had simply been shipped overseas. As if blacks owned the textile factories. How can you look at what has happened to marriage and family over the last 30 years and think the ascension of gay marriage is going to destroy traditional family structures? That kind of blindness can only be subscribed to irrational fear, whether malicious or just ridiculous (e.g., like children avoiding stepping on the cracks in the sidewalks so monsters don’t get them). At some point, refusing to see something so obvious leads people to the reasonable assumption that yes, you are bigotted.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 10:52 am
Otherwise it would be like opening up the newspaper and finding only things you agree with on the op-ed pages. I always need extra coffee when that happens . . .
Well, I’d hate to take away that boost of adrenaline every morning, Dan. Let’s pass some laws that put gays in camps, that way you can really savor the morning anger.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 10:53 am
Res Ipsa, to be quite honest after reading your positions on things, I’ve felt you’ve taken a consistent apologist viewpoint for being gay, and overcompensated for others who have layed their cards out on the table. Elizabeth’s motivations as shown by several comments here are definitely politely spoken concepts of bigotry.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 10:56 am
Blargh Edit: Should read - ‘Consistent apologist viewpoint for being gay, and overcompensated for people acting against the interests of gays’
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 10:58 am
What burns me is that there are thousands of parents whose rights should be on the chopping block–they neglect and abuse their kids in every way imaginable. The hit them, have sex with them, refuse to give them any limits, mind-fuck them, refuse to supervise their activities, leave them in cars in public parking lots, and god knows what else. Child protection is an oxymoron. The only headway made in terminating rights was the landmark decision to put a two-year cap on foster care, and that came thanks to Hillary Rodham Clinton.
There is absolutely no known reason a pair of gay parents cannot do as good a job as a pair of heterosexual parents. In many cases, one likes to think they will do a better job.
But children aside, all marriages are civil unions. This is what pro-gay legislators and activists should be saying over and over, rather than pretending that a “civil union” is a fake marriage that maybe people could tolerate.
This comment was written by Diane.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 11:09 am
Kim, I’m sorry you feel I am not the type of homosexual you believe I shuold be, accusing everyone of being a bigot when they haven’t reached the same position I have. Because I am not schooled in labelling everything “misogynistic” or “partiarchial” when they disagree with me, I guess I just have trouble living up to your standards of discourse and thinking. My apologies.
Getting back to the point. I just think we need to be careful about using the “homophobia” card evertime we are in a discussion on this topic. Like screaming “misogyny” or “racist,” pretty soon no one takes you seriously and you become even more marginalized because you can’t carry on a conversation without questioning someone’s values. It’s simpleminded analysis and argumentation.
Do I believe homophobia is guiding most of the anti-SSM rhetoric? Absolutely. Am I willing to label Focus on the Family, the Alliance for Marriage, the Catholic Church, and the Traditional Values Coalition homophic? Absolutely. Am I willing to label Maggie Gallagher homophobic? Absolutely, her record of anti-gay advocacy clearly has earned her that label. But should people like Elizabeth, who has no track record of anti-gay advocacy and appears to be operating in good faith get the label? No.
That’s not to say, however, she should be accountable for her comments and should be wary of allowing her ideas to be co-opted by Evangelicals and those who solely have an anti-gay agenda.
This comment was written by Res Ipsa.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 11:24 am
Res,
It’s not your homosexuality I have a problem with, it’s your just short of ‘ex-gay’ homosexual chastising that I’ve seen occur on other threads. It’s the sort of non-productive and apologetic behavior that seems to be found among some LCR’s and folks like Mary Cheney. While it’s absolutely within bounds for you to act this way, it’s rather silly to not expect to get called on it when you participate in threads that subtly indicate this tendency of yours, but don’t highlight your own ‘track record’ for verbally berating other gay people for fights you don’t think are important (ala gay marriage).
As for Elizabeth, It strikes me as no big surprise that you’re defending a viewpoint that can clearly be shown as extremely narrow and hypocritical.
It’s possible I’m being a bit less charitable towards you than I might ordinarily be, but having read about the ‘ex-gay’ director of the gay reform camp in PA’s thread, I’m rather nervous and leery of homophobia that stems from the well-spring itself. That doesn’t mean I think you ought to be a champion of every gay cause, or even any if that’s not your choice, but at the same time, I don’t think your being gay gives you a free out when you defend opponents of gay marriage, or the fight that is occurring around the idea of gay marriage.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 12:08 pm
Kim, it appears to be my attempts to see all sides and consider other views that you find so baffling. In the future, I will follow the group-think on this: anyone who opposes anything gay is homophobic.
This comment was written by Res Ipsa.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 12:33 pm
I tend to think that it’s pointless to debate whether or not Elizabeth “is” a homophobe.
For me, it’s enough to say that her argument is based on the homophobic idea that it’s acceptable to sacrifice equal rights for same-sex couples and their children when doing so serves heterosexual ends. (Strictly speaking, I guess that’s more a heterocentrist idea than a homophobic idea).
I don’t think that Elizabeth has to be homophobic to make her arguments. The inherant homophobia of her position is not obvious to everyone; I think that Elizabeth’s co-blogger Tom, who favors SSM, might not agree with me that Elizabeth’s position is inherently based on homophobic premises. It’s possible that she’s a non-homophobe, and that in time she’ll come to realize the inherant homophobia of her argument and thus reject her current position. I’d rather give her the benefit of the doubt, just as I’d rather people give me the benefit of the doubt.
In the end, though, it just doesn’t matter to me. Elizabeth is not the important issue here; the wrongness of arguments premised on “homosexuals must do without rights to protect heterosexuals” is.
In addition, as a practical strategy, I really do think focusing on the arugment, rather than focusing on Elizabeth as a person, is more likely to be persuasive for any fence-sitters out there.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 12:42 pm
Thanks for getting us back on track.
This comment was written by Res Ipsa.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 1:29 pm
Ater re-reading Elizabeth’s post, I’m even more sure she’s playing the game of comparing same sex households to single parent households in an attempt to stop same sex marriage.
It’s bullshit, and she ought to know it by now. Same sex couples are *NOT* the same as single parent households, and she’s trying to imply that they are, interms of being bad places (statisticaly) for kids to grow up.
I’m calling her on it We’ll see how she responds.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 3:33 pm
Well, I’m not sure Elizabeth should get the ‘charitable’ view / benefit of the doubt that you afford her Amp. That, however, comes from a person in a family directly affected by her claims.
She’s claiming in effect (as I see it) that somehow children of gays are permanently damaged by having gay parents. Being that my husband’s mother is gay, and married and that due to my husband’s mothers spouse, he has a much BETTER relationship with his mother, I find it - well.. insulting. I also will defend my husband and the amazingly good person he is to the depth and breadth of my being, and as it’s probably quite obvious, if you directly threaten those I love, or myself I’ll come out fighting hard.
I tend to take greater offense at people throwing low blows that they are attempting to cover-up, than those that at least take visible shots that show their attack. If they want to cuddle their homophobia and judgements on a personal level, so be it, but the moment they start publically fighting to hurt my family, well then, we have a problem, and that includes Elizabeth and people defending her sort.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 3:35 pm
I should have added:
The victims of Elizabeth’s argument aren’t just queer’s, they are the families of queer’s and well, that’s a bigger demographic than she might well imagine.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
I hope this isn’t intended to imply what it sounds like it’s intended to imply.
I’m not sure if that’s what she’s intending to say (although she certainly may be intending to say that - see my criticism of how she cites research). She definitely is saying that children of heterosexuals would be damaged if there were legal SSM.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
Kim,
I think it’s broader than that because she denigrating both the ‘parents’ and children where the family isn’t based on her normal configuration of mom and dad; and she implies (though perhaps unintentionally) that there is no marriage without children. So she got me twice, once because my sisters and I was raised by what we considered to be two mothers (one of them was my mother, the other was an aunt who lived with us) and again because my husband and I decided to not to have children and apparently had an unmarriage for 33 years.
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
Eh, just because she peppers her anti-gay rhetoric with gentle bigotry doesn’t make it any less bigotry.
So she cushions her views with smiles and half-assed approvals, she still is sending a definitive message: We’re better than you, you’re screwing your kids up.
She also attempts to prove it based off studies that you and I have actually sat down and discussed at length as being extremely questionable and surrounded by all sorts of pitfalls that make the argument far less salient than it might immediately seem. Step-parents are often held at bay from having close parental relationships due to how our culture works. There is often the concern of not stepping on bio-parents toes, and also they often come in amidst a huge amounts of baggage. It’s no complex mathematical equation that tells us, the less baggage, the more successful a familial relationship.
In this attempt to define the perfect type of parents, she absolutely neglects what makes a good parent to begin with. The qualities that make a good parent can be found in both genders and many variations. I’d even make the (unsupported, but gut feeling) claim that I think it’s probable that there are far more unsuitable biological parents living with their children than gay parents living with their children. Contrary to what a lot of people think ‘God says so’ isn’t a legitimate claim of unsuitability, nor is the absence of one set of genitalia.
And as Andi points out, she’s also claiming superiority over any family that isn’t two bio-parents and children. She’s hijacking our families and our marriages to slap up as examples of less than, and then expecting some sort of civil and happy discourse? And people are actually buying into the bs notion that her postulations are somehow ‘academic’ and without animus as prior stated. To me she represents a very dangerous enemy of non-traditional families. The wolf in sheeps clothing.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 5:27 pm
My current favorite spew from anti-marriage equality folks? I’m glad you asked. It is:
“…children do best, on average, being raised by their own mother and father and not just two parents.”
The “on average” kills me. It’s thrown in there to make what they’re saying sound like science. But it isn’t, it’s just a lie. As is the ruse that is their “concern” for the children.
Did you know that children do best, on average, when raised by millionaires? Why aren’t you advocating that only millionaires be able to have and raise children?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 9:20 pm
As I’ve mentioned before, Elizabeth’s comparisons of same sex couples raising kids to single parent families conctitutes either a direct lie, or staggering ignorance.
The two are not comprable, but she acts as if they were in order to push her agenda.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 9:29 pm
But it isn’t, it’s just a lie. As is the ruse that is their “concern”? for the children.
You know, maybe so. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find that adherents of any ideology or political affiliation were lying about caring about something or someone; it’s one reason I respond a lot more positively to arguments that appeal to my own self-interest than arguments that work from the basis of someone’s alleged deep and abiding concern.
But is there any point to hammering it time after time after time? I can’t think of the last time I’ve read a post on Alas where someone (not always the post author) didn’t chime in with an ad hominem about how the people in question are lying about their concern for children, lying about their concern for the family, lying about their concern for women, lying about their concern for society, lying lying lying. It’s just AMAZING that every single person who has a different policy position than this eclectic bunch of lefties is a huge liar. It’s just ASTONISHING that of all the vast, vast array of people who think that (say) P-A’s ideas are dingo kidneys, none of them really feel the way they say they feel; they’re all liars. You really have to wonder about how all these pathological personalities - who are liars, remember - manage to build these multi-nation and even multi-generation organizational structures. (Why, they must be based on lies, of course!)
Past a certain point, it just diminishes the credibility of the person making the claims. I know that my attention and approval are not the motivating factors for most posters here, but my feelings cannot be unique. And I’ve reached the point that when someone feels compelled to lard every dissent from some other group’s position or statements with accusations of bad faith and lying and puppy-mangling, I just tune it, and them, out. It’s a lot harder to make a case against someone’s ideas than it is to just think of new synonyms for “puppy-mangler”; one of the reasons that I pay attention to folks like Amp is that they rarely resort to accusations of puppy-mangling as a defense of their ideas. I wish there were more people like him.
(Wait, I take that back. I wish that more of the people that I disagree with on everything anyway were like him.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 9:43 pm
“It’s just ASTONISHING that of all the vast, vast array of people who think that (say) P-A’s ideas are dingo kidneys, none of them really feel the way they say they feel; they’re all liars.”
Hey Robert, how about making such assumptions about me and my personal agenda on one of my posts. This is Amp’s, so out of respect for his authority, I won’t even get into it here.
This comment was written by Pseudo-Adrienne.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 10:27 pm
This isn’t an ad hominem, though. When someone questions the position of the people making public stands, it is most often done to illuminate biases that they would be unwilling to reveal on their own, and instead attempt to portray their arguments as academic (ie: Elizabeth).
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 11:13 pm
it is most often done to illuminate biases that they would be unwilling to reveal on their own
OK. How does saying “she’s lying about her concern for children”, and not presenting any evidence of dissimulation, just the unsupported slur, illuminate a bias?
The sole informational content being presented is “I assert that this person is a liar.” That’s not useful data, as a general rule. It illuminates nothing.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 11:43 pm
Maybe they are asserting that she’s lying to herself. She’s got this host of ‘facts’ that she knows are easily debunkable, yet she holds to them firmly, despite contrary evidence. She uses irrelevant evidence to back up an argument that not only isn’t helpful to children in gay and lesbian families, but in fact is harmful to them.
Whether the accusation of lying is describing willfull deception of the public or stubborn refusal to accept truths to oneself, a lie is still a lie. It’s also a lie about the topic at hand, used to persuade an audience. Calling someone out on such a thing hardly constitutes ad hominem.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2005 at 12:30 am
“…children do best, on average, being raised by their own mother and father and not just two parents.”?
That statement is a lie. That lie is being repeated by people who have been shown the evidence disproving the statement. They continue to repeat the lie. Those people are liars. The fact that they never suggest that other, proven, factors around marriage that harm children (but currently affect only het couples) be changed strongly suggests that their claim of concern for children wrt marriage is a lie.
I don’t claim that those who oppose SSM on religious grounds are liars. I just claim that the US constitution makes their opposition moot. I don’t claim that those who oppose SSM because they believe homosexuals are evil are lying. I just claim that they are bigots.
I hope that cleared things up for you.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2005 at 5:17 am
Well Robert,
It’s just AMAZING that every single person who has a different policy position than this eclectic bunch of lefties is a huge liar.
That’s a lie. No doubt you are now thrilled to have your point proved. On the other hand if are going to take one statement and make it apply to everyone in a specific group in literally every circumstance, let me borrow that tactic and say that I find it AMAZIN that every single person who has different policy position from you righties is a moral degenerate who has no understanding of the greater spiritual and moral truths.
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2005 at 5:38 am
Elizabeth M. may be quite sincere in her concern for children. I have no way to judge that and I’m not interested in doing so. That isn’t the issue. The issue is that she has a end — to prevent SSM — and she is willing to take whatever arguments, studies, and statistics she can find and force them to support her position. If she isn’t lying, she is at least being highly disingenuous. In this case, she has taken what may or may not be a genuine concern for children and tried to use it to argue against SSM. If she were sincere that her SSM argument was based entirely on concern for children, then I would expect her to stop spending time on SSM and devote her time to campaigning against people who were abused as children having children since there is overwhelming evidence that abusers tend to be those who were abused.
Errata for post 51:
“if are” should read “if we are”
“AMAZIN” should be “AMAZING”
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2005 at 5:59 am
amp: I haven’t read the comment thread, this may have been already covered, but just in case it hasn’t…The axiom that children are better off with their biological parents isn’t necessarily always true. Numerous studies on children of lesbian parents has shown that these children do just as well as children raised by heterosexual parents on every measure that anyone can think of. Some of these studies have included very long term follow-up, well into the adult lives of the children. None has shown children of lesbian parents to be in any way worse off than the children of heterosexaul parents. The data on children of gay male parents is similar but the number of studies is much smaller so the conclusion is less definitive. However, again, there is no evidence that a child growing up being raised by gay or lesbian parents is at any disadvantage compared to children being raised by straight parents, even though they are not being raised by both biological parents. I’ll post references to back my claims if anyone asks.
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2005 at 6:50 am
Dianne: We’ve covered that already, but thank you. I totally agree with you.
AndiF wrote:
I don’t think Elizabeth spends all that much time on SSM. Judging from the work she turns out and what she’s said about her career, she spends far more time researching and writing about the effects of divorce on children.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2005 at 7:25 am
Regardless of how much time she spends on it (or how much time anyone else spends on it), using the ‘best interest of the child’ against SSM is a dishonest argument and ought to be abandoned. I really don’t believe that there are any rational arguments against SSM; the only ones that can be taken seriously are those with a religious basis and those only have relevance for religious marriage and can’t be used to argue against civil marriage.
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2005 at 7:37 am
The thing I don’t get about Elizabeth’s work, and I’ve read a chunk of it (although, probably not as much as others here admittedly) is that she openly, and actively, supports such things as second-parent adoption for SS couples. And not just under a heterosexist framework either. She supports the legal recognition of a ‘mother’ and a ‘mother’ (or vice versa) openly as much (on birth certificates for instance) as being not just respectful humane to the parents, but also best for the children involved.
In fact, for a lot of the things she says, I would call her ally.
But then she does a completely nonsensical 180 to wanting to deny SSM based on ideas of parenting that seem to totally contradict the above support. And not only contradict, but really have no solid basis in reality, as many here have shown, including Amp.
Maybe she is lying, maybe she isn’t. I’m personally willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and say that she might have the best of intentions and she isn’t aware of the strong homophobia of her statements. BUT, particularly if she isn’t aware of the homphobia, this raises LARGE warning flags to me about underlying bigotries and prejudices.
Because if virtually everything else she does is actually good work in being concerned about the welfare of children (such as Amp’s mention of her work on divorce above) and also being supportive of SS couples as parents BUT then on the ONE ISSUE of marriage she runs for the hills, as it were, it tells you there is something else going on here, PARTICULARLY when she backs up her claims for opposition with easily refutable claims and ’studies’.
This suggests to me that there is something special for her in marriage that she beleives should be for heterosexuals only, so much so that she is willing to ignore the massive fallacies in her arguments over such. It is those inconsistencies that speaks to an irrationality that tells me there is a ground level bigotry going on here.
Elizabeth COULD be a really great ally to us. But until she sees her bigotries openly as such (as a lot of us are _trying_ to do similarly in other areas of inequality) and works to correct it, I am going to call a bigot a bigot a bigot, regardless of her intentions.
This comment was written by Sarah in Chicago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2005 at 7:48 am
AndiF wrote:
I agree with you that there are no rational, secular arguments against SSM. I don’t think anyone here would disagree with you about that. Probably that’s why I’ve spent so much time over the past two years engaging with Elizabeth’s views - because I find the opposition to SSM so difficult to understand, and I’m trying to understand it.
I don’t agree with disparaging Elizabeth. On the contrary, I think it’s essential to give the benefit of the doubt to people who are generally pro-queer-rights, but who find marriage equality to be a step too far.
When I debate or argue on the internet, I’m trying to be persuasive, as best as I can, to the person I’m addressing. But even more so, I’m trying to be persuasive to any lurkers reading the exchange who may be fence-sitters on the issue. And it seems to me that fence-sitters on the SSM issue are likely to be people who, like Elizabeth, want to favor equal rights for queers in general, but who have a strong aversion to changing the institution of marriage.
I don’t think suggesting that anyone who holds Elizabeth’s position must be a bad person, a bigot, etc - which is what some of the posters here are clearly implying - is likely to be persuasive to any fence-sitters who are attracted to Elizabeth’s position. On the contrary, I think it’s likely to alienate them. So, from a strategic point of view, it makes sense to give “the benefit of the doubt,” and to concentrate on the argument rather than on the person, whenever possible.
(There are other reasons, too. I think it’s just morally better to be kind to people, by and large. I don’t understand how I can expect anyone who disagrees with me to give me the benefit of the doubt, if I’m not offering it in turn. But the strategic reason alone ought to be enough.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2005 at 7:49 am
Robert:
Gee Robert, ever hear of Enron? Multi national corporation built on lies. Also see the Unification Church, AKA The Moonies. Multi generation church built on the insane delusion that Sun Myung Moon is the messiah. Literally MILLIONS of people fall for this shit.
Why? Because Barnum was right. There’s a sucker born every minute, and these people are taking advantage of that.
As for Elizabeth, I just SHOWED how she was a liar, so you shifted to attacking my pointing out that she was a liar, instead of addressing anything I actually had to say about her lies. So here you are trying to derail things into a general attack on people you disagree with by hinting that *we’re* the ones making things up.
It’s pretty sad that you’re not up to debating the issues, and are reduced to a slightly more literate “I know you are, but what am I?” retort.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2005 at 8:19 am
Amp,
I see your reasons for not calling Eizabeth’s position a bigotry, and certainly think it a definite valid position to take … and hell, treating opposition as reasonable human being is actually a good strategy, something I have tried (admittedly, working on that) to apply in other scenarios.
But I think it is when it is such a personal attack, openly arguing against me and the people I love having the same rights as everyone else, based upon arguments we all agree to not stand up to any real refutation in any way whatsoever, I am going to be less than giving perhaps in my treatment of such a person.
The thing I don’t get about Elizabeth is that IT REALLY MAKES NO SENSE. She does such good work and puts together such excellent arguments in her other work that this is such a glaring inconsistency that to a certain extent it makes it worse. Dumb-arse obvious bigots are easily to laugh at in their stupidity and powerlessness, so it’s almost worse when otherwise perfectly reasonable people argue a similar position based on similarly stupid arguments. Hence my wondering of the basis lying in an irrational bigotry.
I’ll admit, I could certainly be motivated by my own blinkers in this regard, being personally targetted by her accusations, but even given that, and your excellent arguments for doing otherwise, I’m still going to name bigotry bigotry.
This comment was written by Sarah in Chicago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2005 at 8:27 am
Barry:
I agree with you that there are no rational, secular arguments against SSM.
The Hayekian argument is rational and secular. It’s just not enough to convince most people.
Josh:
As for Elizabeth, I just SHOWED how she was a liar, so you shifted to attacking my pointing out that she was a liar, instead of addressing anything I actually had to say about her lies.
I specifically addressed lies about motive, not disagreements about facts and their interpretations. Since I was responding to (and quoting from) Jake’s comment, not one of yours, I’m not sure where you get the idea that I’m shifting my position to avoid your strong point.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2005 at 8:57 am
Sarah wrote:
If I were to speculate, I would tend to agree with what Res Ispa wrote:
Elizabeth makes no secret of the fact that her parents are divorced, and that her parents’ divorce was an extraordinarily painful thing for her, which has left lasting scars. It’s possible that this has led to the “absolutism” about marriage issues which Res Ispa describes, and to her unwillingness to accept that it’s ever a good idea for marriage as an institution to change. So I agree that there’s a bias there - but the bias is primarily about marriage, not about same-sex couples.
At the same time, I’d never say that homophobia is irrelevant to Elizabeth’s arguments, or to any argument against SSM. Part of what’s going on, I think, is that our society as a whole hasn’t fully absorbed the idea that same-sex couples are just as good, and just as valuable, as cross-sex couples. As a result, arguments that are obviously irrational if we said them about (say) Jews, or blue-eyed people, don’t seem obviously irrational to most people in our society when they’re said about queers.
Most anti-SSM arguments fall into this category. For example, imagine if I said “we can’t allow Jews full marriage rights, because it might be a slippery slope leading to incest.” Put aside the obvious nonsense of the cause and effect claim for a moment - I want to make a different point. Even if it were true that allowing Jews full marriage rights would, in some way, make it easier for people to argue in favor of incest, wouldn’t we still reject the argument because of it’s implication that it’s okay to discriminate against Jews in order to prevent some other social ill?
A century ago, arguing that Jews can’t be afforded full rights, because that would hurt the interests of society, would have sounded like a sensible argument to most Americans. What’s changed in the last hundred years is that society has accepted that Jews are fully human, fully as valuable as anyone else. The idea that it’s ever okay to treat Jews as condoms - that is, to consider Jews something that can be used to provide protection to society from ills - no longer holds water.
That acceptance hasn’t yet happened for queers, however. Which is why arguments that SSM is a slippery slope to incest still carry such currency. I don’t think that SSM will lead to incestuous marriage. But even if I did believe that, it wouldn’t matter - because it’s morally wrong to use queers as human sacrifices to protect society. Queers are people, not condoms; queers are not here to provide protection to everyone else.
But that view is very much a minority view in the USA today. To most people - even if they favor SSM - arugments opposing SSM in order to shield society from a parade of horribles don’t sound obviously irrational. It is the widespread social belief that it’s okay to use queers as condoms that is, I think, the essential backdrop to arguments against SSM.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2005 at 9:02 am
children do best, on average, when raised by millionaires
Heh, yes…
I am always amused at how people who claim having a mum and dad in a stable marriage is all that counts to the wellbeing of children. As if it’s a guarantee against psychological neglect, physical abuse, or just ’simple’ heartlessness and cruelty towards the children.
Like it’s all about the external form, not the substance of those relationships. Some real concern for kids, that.
Perhaps there should be a parenting license, after all raising kids is more of a delicate business than driving a car. Then we could see how many straight god-loving folks pass the test.
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2005 at 9:10 am
Robert wrote:
Fair enough. And I think Jonathan Rauch makes a very good argument that the Hayekian argument not only shouldn’t be very convincing, but that it isn’t terribly Hayekian, either.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2005 at 9:53 am
I actually see the logic in Elizabeth’s argument against SSM. If you are a marriage absolutist (much like a pro-choice absolutist) you see every move that can erode an already tenuous situation as the “breaking point” that will put things over the edge. She believes marriage is fragile and vulnerable. Thus, allowing SSM further erodes an already weakened institution because she fears people will be even less interested in the institution if the connection between male/female marriage becomes weakened.
In that sense, she is no different from pro-choice (or pro-gun) asbolutists who are unwilling to accept a single compromise or change because they believe their rights are going to crumble.
Based on her belief that divorce is generally bad for kids (which it is, regardless of what social science you read) and if you believe that non-married relationships are less stable than marriages (again, there isn’t much dispute about this), than you are concerned about fewer people marrying or people not taking marriage seriously.
Now, all of that said, I don’t quite buy the whole asbolutist argument and I feel that it ignores the basic civil rights question that is raised by denying SSM. But there is a logic to it that isn’t necessarily based in homophobia, but instead an absolutist, rationalist belief. You don’t have to agree with it to appreciate there is something there.
This comment was written by Res ipsa.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2005 at 10:09 am
Res,
You are missing the point slight. Yes, I certainly agree that a part of her argument could come from an absolutist position. However, where the homophobia/bigotry lies is not there, and so we are not arguing against that point.
Where the homophobia lies is in the belief that SSM would WEAKEN the institution of marriage, ie that there is something fundamentally wrong with it such that it would lessen the importance of marriage, making it more tenuous. Why this is homophobia/bigotry is because from precisely the same position, it could be argued that adding SSM to the insitution could STRENGTHEN marriage; both are consitent.
It is the assumption that SSM will intrinsically erode marriage that is the bigotry, particularly because there is no basis for the argument that less people will be interested in marriage (as the article Amp linked to shows, amongst anything - btw, great article Amp! thanks!) if it occurs. Personally. I think it’s going to do niether, unlike some pro-SSM people that think it’ll firm it up, but that’s just my opinion.
Critical thought is in part about looking to the assumptions that underline arguments, and that’s what a lot of us are doing here.
This comment was written by Sarah in Chicago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2005 at 10:15 am
Res Ispa:
“Based on her belief that divorce is generally bad for kids (which it is, regardless of what social science you read) and if you believe that non-married relationships are less stable than marriages (again, there isn’t much dispute about this), than you are concerned about fewer people marrying or people not taking marriage seriously.”?
What? I’m not following this as logic that makes sense. Divorce is bad for kids: agreed. Non-married relationships are less stable than marriages: disagree profusely, but I’ll leave that alone for a moment. But the conclusion that Elizabeth is then worried that fewer people will marry/people not take marriage seriously, I have to question. Why would she assume a correlation between SSM and a lack of seriousness that would damage the institution of marriage?
Also, what she doesn’t explain (at least to my satisfaction) is how the connection between man/women is going to be eroded with the legalization of SSM. How does it make any sense that heterosexual individuals are going to be less comfortable getting married simply because queer people can too? Isn’t this like saying that heterosexuals get married simply because they CAN and queers can’t?
Am I missing something? Am I being particularly thick today? I might be, i’m a little hungover so i’ll be needing a careful explanation here.
This comment was written by Sydney.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2005 at 10:23 am
Is the “institution of marriage” supposed to serve people who get married and their children, or, is it the people who are supposed to serve the “institution”? for whose advantage?
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2005 at 10:26 am
Syndey, I agree with your point. I think that’s where the argument falls apart (for me) and quits making much sense. I also think that’s why the basic argument she is making doesn’t really “have legs” in persuading people about the problems with SSM.
Sarah, since you need to label something so badly, I would agree with you that the idea that SSM will weaken marriage is based on the assumption that because people are homophobic (which is true), they will be less attracted to marriage because gays are allowed to marry.
This comment was written by Res ipsa.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2005 at 10:57 am
Res,
I have no need to label anything anything in particular. But I won’t let prejudice go by without naming it such. And actually, don’t in my everyday usage, invoke such terms that often. I reserve it for when it is really apparenly such.
Oh, and I wasn’t actually arguing that, so I don’t know precisely what you are agreeing with. I don’t think that just because SSM existed that it would mean people will avoid getting married because they are homphobic I sure some tiny minority might, but the rest simply won’t care because to do so would stop them from doing something they really want. As the excellent article that Amp linked to showed, the same argument was made against women having equality with their husbands within marriage, and while some might argue that is has, no one rational would think the institution is destroyed because of that.
This comment was written by Sarah in Chicago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2005 at 11:45 am
Res ipsa: Much the same aargument was used against giving women the vote.
If a Hayekian argument can be used against giving women the vote, what good is Hayek?
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2005 at 12:09 pm
If you are a marriage absolutist (much like a pro-choice absolutist) you see every move that can erode an already tenuous situation as the “breaking point”? that will put things over the edge.
The vagueness in your analogy papers over one important difference: pro-choice ‘absolutists’ believe that concessions on abortion rights will weaken the legal underpinnings of abortion, i.e. Roe v. Wade. Are you saying that Elizabeth believes if we allow SSM, that marriage laws will vanish?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2005 at 3:55 pm
Res Ispa:
Okay, so I agree with exactly what Sarah said. In fact, she pretty much stated not only my point, but she then proceeded to the next logical conclusion which is that the disconnect in Elizabeth’s argument stems from her (unrecognized) homophobia. So if you agree with me, then you’re pretty much agreeing with exactly what Sarah said.
Also, while I appreciate your reluctance to use the term homophobia to describe certain people who might be allies, I disagree with your argument here. Yes, over-using the label homophobia can decrease its effectiveness. However, NOT using the term out of fear is equally dangerous. I mean there is a reason why the term was created- to properly identify to everyone a series/system of behaviors and beliefs. Refusal to use such identifiers can stagnate actually social change. I do not believe that in this context Sarah is casually throwing the terms homophobic and bigot as insults. Rather, they are being introduced into this dialogue to help identify a problem so that we can all work toward an effective solution.
Does this make sense?
This comment was written by Sydney.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2005 at 7:14 pm
Myth, like pro-chioce absolutists, marriage absolutists believe SSM would erode the social underpinnings of marriage. While one is legal and one is social, both sets of absolutists are convinced that any concession will destroy a whole house of cards.
I understand the desire to label people and ideas homophobic and, as I said, have no problem labelling someone like Gallagher as homophobic or most right-wing organizations as homophobic. I am just not convinced it is what is driving arguments like Marquarts. I also feel liberals and progressives too easily throw out the “homophobia,” “racist” or “misognyny” label which is a little intellectually and rhetorically lazy. That’s why I think we need to be careful.
This comment was written by resipsa.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2005 at 10:17 pm
Res,
Are you for, or against SSM?
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2005 at 11:36 pm
>> “Because if virtually everything else she does is actually good work in being concerned about the welfare of children (such as Amp’s mention of her work on divorce above) and also being supportive of SS couples as parents BUT then on the ONE ISSUE of marriage she runs for the hills, as it were, it tells you there is something else going on here”
What could be going on is that Elizabeth “and her kind” are more right than wrong about marriage and children.
This comment was written by F. Rottles.Report this comment to the moderators
June 19th, 2005 at 3:04 am
F. Rottles : What could be going on is that Elizabeth “and her kind”? are more right than wrong about marriage and children.
Right about marriage being often a good environment to bring up children in: wrong about blocking same-sex couples access to marriage.
Right about putting the welfare of children first: wrong whenever her homophobia means she fails to do that - as, plainly, she does, whenever the children’s parents are a same-sex couple.
So, mostly right: her homophobia is a problem, and one which I would hope she would strive to overcome.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
June 19th, 2005 at 7:00 am
As Amp has said, I don’t think it solves much to spend time discussing whether she is homophobic or not.
Kim, I support SSM. I don’t think it is the most improtant issue facing the gay community, but I think this is the fight of the moment and it is important to advocate for it.
I also believe it is a complex issue that really can’t be broken down to simply those who support it are good and those opposed to it are bad and, thus, homophobic. While I believe it is a legal and civil rights question, I believe there is a larger social question about what marriage means and what impact allowing gays into marriage means on a larger social and philosophical level.
This comment was written by resipsa.Report this comment to the moderators
June 19th, 2005 at 8:26 am
resipsa: As Amp has said, I don’t think it solves much to spend time discussing whether she is homophobic or not.
None at all. Clearly she is homophobic, and the only question is whether she can learn to overcome this aspect of her personality in order not to let it warp values that are more important to her.
I also believe it is a complex issue that really can’t be broken down to simply those who support it are good and those opposed to it are bad and, thus, homophobic.
That’s a very straw man way of putting it. Simply, the only reasons for opposing same-sex marriage are homophobic ones. It’s not a question of those opposing it being “bad”: that would be simplistic, and untrue. But certainly, opposition to same-sex marriage is rooted in homophobia. No question.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
June 19th, 2005 at 11:21 am
Res
We have all showed time after time after time on this thread why we think Elizabeth’s arguments come from a homphobic basis. We have disproved her arguments, we have shown the holes in her reasoning, in her logic, and her assumptions. This is NOT merely throwing around accusations based on not really useful categories of ‘bad’ or ‘good’. Moreover, it’s not about labelling for labelling’s sake.
This is about naming a behaviour so that perhaps Elizabeth can read what we are writing and rethink what she is saying so that she honestly can better serve the families and children she wishes to. You cannot address a problem until you know what it is really coming from.
Now, I expect you still won’t accept what I am saying in this post given the trend in your posts in this thread and other threads, but that’s your perogative. I just hope you can finally see some reason here.
This comment was written by Sarah in Chicago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 19th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
Today in Madrid thousands of ‘concerned’ citizens among the minority who is opposed to the upcoming law on gay marriage protested, led by a handful of old, unmarried and childless men in black known as ‘priests’, one of which pronounced, as reported by European papers, that the law about to be passed by Zapatero’s government with the support of two thirds of the population was an abomination the likes of which their church has never seen in 2000 years.
There are obvious, all too obvious things to be said about that statement and where it came from but that’d be too easy.
What I don’t understand is the supposed difference between that kind of pronouncement, and apparently more sophisticated tirades that still boil down to ‘think of the children’ and ‘what next’ and ‘oh the decadence’. I mean, you could write a very civilised, polite and elaborate 2,000 word essay to argue against immigration into country x from a thinly disguised racist position, but it wouldn’t make the concept any different than shouting ‘we don’t want no foreign scum’.
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
June 19th, 2005 at 12:32 pm
This is about naming a behaviour so that perhaps Elizabeth can read what we are writing and rethink what she is saying so that she honestly can better serve the families and children she wishes to.
YMMV. I really don’t think Elizabeth would honesty and thoughtfully consider whether her stance on SSM helps children. She doesn’t want the queers to marry, and the half-assed ‘logic’ supporting that stance is just window dressing.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 19th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
This is about naming a behaviour so that perhaps Elizabeth can read what we are writing and rethink what she is saying so that she honestly can better serve the families and children she wishes to. You cannot address a problem until you know what it is really coming from.
Except if it is not based in homophobia, then it is useless exercise in “naming a behavior” and does nothing to move the discussion forward, except to make us feel better about screaming “HOMOPHOBIC’ at the top of our lungs. And even if it is “homophobic,” it doesn’t really change anyone’s mind.
I know it’s helpful to us to “label the behvior” because it doesn’t really require us to look much deeper than, “They just hate us.” But once you’ve attached the scarlet “H,” where are we? For people like Elizabeth and others who have general concern about gay rights yet aren’t willing to jump aboard the gay marriage bandwagon, we’ve just alienated them and drove them away. I would much rather dialogue.
This comment was written by resipsa.Report this comment to the moderators
June 19th, 2005 at 1:50 pm
Ruling out ‘fear’ of homosexuality doesn’t rule out dislike to the point that someone would attempt to actively and unfairly discriminate. The reasoning Elizabeth gives is neither consistent or based in reality and she has got to know it. It’s easier to not feel threatened or angry at less educated folks, but it’s very hard to consider Elizabeth’s position with any charity. She knows, or -should- know better. If she was concerned for your family, Res, or my family, or Sarah’s family, that would be evidenced in her actions. The fact is, she doesn’t give a crap about any families other than the ones she consideres to be ‘best’, and for those of us where these sorts of issues -count-, it’s a stance worth pointing some fingers and saying ‘hey, you, yeah the messing with my family and our rights - back off’.
Also, there is a difference between jumping on the bandwagon, sitting the fence and jumping on the anti-bandwagon. Elizabeth’s actions are that of jumping on the anti-bandwagon. As for her feeling alienated - well, she already ‘alienated’ herself by taking the stance she did. She doesn’t deserve coddling to get her into a warmer, fuzzier state of mind with regards to gay people and their families.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 19th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
Kim, I don’t want to get into an argument with you about Elizabeth (whose emotional feelings I have no insight into) or SSM (which is an enormous topic). I just have an observation and a question.
The “purity” strategy you’re signing onto has been the strategy that the left has consistently and persistently pursued on a lot of issues; you agree with Elizabeth on ABCD, but she’s wrong on EFG, so she’s a homophobe and a bigot, unworthy of being brought into any coalitions, to be despised and exiled from the community of right-thinking persons. (Perhaps you have a more nuanced view than this caricature, but the caricature is what your less sophisticated allies will end up following in behavioral terms.)
How’s that strategy working for you guys?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 19th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
Actualy, there is a background phobia in Elizabeth’s language. Two of them, in fact. There’s the phobia that letting same sex couples marry will hurt heterosexual marriage, and the fear that homosexuals are either bad parents, or somehow sexualizing children just by being around them.
Homophobes freuently define GLBT people by sexuality alone. To them anyone we deal with has to be on a sexual level, because that’s how they see us. They see sex first, and person later. It’s the same with racists. they see race first, and person second.
It’s not that Elizabeth disagrees with me on SSM that makes her s homophobe, it’s that her arguments are based on an appeal to people’s fear. That’s what makes her a homophobe.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
June 19th, 2005 at 3:50 pm
How’s that strategy working for you guys?
Which strategy–trying desperately to avoid doing anything our opponents can caricature? That don’t work so good.
I would much rather dialogue.
You know, my ex used to have this attitude, too. When Jehovah’s Witnesses or other missionaries would come to our door, he’d engage in debate with them, because he thought it was fair to give them a chance. What he never got was that it wasn’t, for them, a “debate.” None of them would ever be persuaded, no matter how perfect his logic.
You can dialogue with the mushy middle. You can’t dialogue with people who intentionally use bad logic to shore up an emotional position.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 19th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
Res,
*sigh* Yes, if something does not arise from a homophobic root, then it is certainly a really bad strategy to go around yelling homophobe, I have actually argued this in queer activist settings as it lessens the importance of the term.
However, and I’ll say this again, we have shown that Elizabeth’s unreasoned denial of marriage for same-sex couples DOES come an emotional reaction, because it in no way based on logic, rationality, or research, and hence by the very definition of the term (and I am talking about the social definition, not the latin derivative) this is homophobia, and certainly heterosexism in it’s operation.
Stop trying to write vague generalist statements about the use or over-use of the label of homophobia and maybe you might see the logic we are coming from.
I personally think Elizabeth might be able to be reached, given the quality and reason of her other work (though I can certainly see where mythago and Kim are arguing from) and I hope that through our efforts here of showing her where her bigotries lie that she can move to see such familes as mine and Kim’s are of equal value and ability as those of heterosexuals.
This comment was written by Sarah in Chicago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 19th, 2005 at 4:33 pm
Sarah,
But for her, her views are based on research and completely rational and logical. That you or I don’t fine them rational or logical doesn’t mean they don’t have some reason or logic. I don’t pretend to believe that my perception of the world and my sense of rationality and logic are the only ones out there.
Is it possible that your reasoning and logic are too emotional and that recognizing that your family may have negative ramifications on the greater society is too much for you to accept, so you refuse to consider it??? Isn’t it possible to have different views of reason and logic?? Isn’t it possible she believes her values and family have as much to lose from SSM as you believe your values and family have to lose if there isn’t SSM?
That doesn’t mean that you or anyone should stop advocating for SSM, because it is an important civil rights issue. But no civil rights gain has come without a price to society and no gain come without some cost. Those prices and costs were worth it, undoubtedly, but we should at least recognize that SSM could have some negative impacts.
This comment was written by resipsa.Report this comment to the moderators
June 19th, 2005 at 6:02 pm
Isn’t it possible she believes her values and family have as much to lose from SSM as you believe your values and family have to lose if there isn’t SSM?
Try this phrasing and see how good an argument this seem: Isn’t it possible she believes her values and family have as much to lose from integration as you believe your values and family have to lose if there isn’t integration?
As I said in my earlier comment (#3), there would be few civil rights if the pain that was caused to those who objected to their granting were all the justiication needed to deny granting them.
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
June 19th, 2005 at 6:33 pm
Robert;
I don’t feel it’s my job to compromise my positions or values to molly-coddle people aggressively seeking to unjustly discriminate against myself, my family or my fellow person. That’s not my particular schtick, though I’m sure you can find plenty of liberals and progressives that think that way. I’m not acting like a moderate, because I am -not- a moderate. I find unaffected invasive moralizing to be one of the bane’s of human existence - it occurs with the goal of creating systems of superiority and inferiority. What good is my word or integrity if I cannot brace myself for the criticism of taking a genuine stand, or gather the courage needed to call out others that are acting in an immorally harmful way to others.
Bottom line, I’d rather be an Inez than a Hillary any day of the week. I don’t debate these issues to ‘win’ debates, I discuss them to make sure that the things I care about are lent the support of my voice, loud and clear. I have a lofty expecation of others that they will employ integrity and fairness in reading what I offer, and if they don’t, well they can be softened up by someone else other than me, because I have no room in my life for people trying to elevate themselves by trying to take others out at the knees. As for Elizabeth’s homophobia, not sure if she is or not, as I’ve stated before - but I am sure that she’s unfairly discriminating. Based on her description, it seems that she holds an elitist view of what a family should look like, which inclines me to believe that her feelings on the subject reside more in superiority (bigotry), rather than fear (homophobia).
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 19th, 2005 at 9:32 pm
Kim, you’ve just said exactly what I feel. I’m always being told that my views are “too extreme” or that I need to be nicer to ppl I’m disagreeing with. You’ve just said exactly the things that I would if I were only so articulate.
This comment was written by Imagynne.Report this comment to the moderators
June 19th, 2005 at 10:45 pm
In choosing an alternative to marriage, liberty is exercised, not denied.
>> Jesurgislac: Right about marriage being often a good environment to bring up children in: wrong about blocking same-sex couples access to marriage.
In what way is marriage an environment? It may or may not be so, but what are the reasons that you describe it as such here?
If someone has chosen to pair with a person of their same sex, then, he or she has decided to form a nonmarital relationship. It is that choice that blocks them, not the logic, reasoning, research, and forbearance which has been displayed by Elizabeth and others who defend the social institution of marriage and defend the treatment of gay men and lesbian women with dignity and respect.
In return she called names by some who think her approach is impure ideologically.
>> Jesurgislac: Right about putting the welfare of children first: wrong whenever her homophobia means she fails to do that - as, plainly, she does, whenever the children’s parents are a same-sex couple.
Parental status, or the mere presence of children in a home, does not create marital status for the man and woman in that home. Same goes for the single sexed pair.
No single sexed pair can be the parents of a child. Presumably, you mean “legal parent” in a genderless way that would denote a home that has two adults intimate sexually, and otherwise, but incapable of providing the child either a mother or a father at home.
On that basis, I think you are indulging in an irrational fear of the supposed fear of homosexuality on the part of Elizabeth. But I may be anticipating your meaning for the term “homophobia”.
>> Jesurgislac: So, mostly right: her homophobia is a problem, and one which I would hope she would strive to overcome.
In this context, what is the meaning of “homophobia”? Disagreement with you about elevating the single sexed arrangement to the preferred status that has been reserved for the conjugal relationship…
This comment was written by F. Rottles.Report this comment to the moderators
June 19th, 2005 at 11:27 pm
F. Rottles;
In being that marriage (the legal variety) is something that has had a fluid definition to adjust to the progress and enlightenment of society at large, where exactly do you get the right to define marriage for all others outside of the legal constrict? I know exactly what contract I signed when I got married, and it defined the legal rights and expectations - period. It did not define what sort of sex I could have within my marriage, whether or not I was obligated to have children, or whether or not I needed any religious approval. Regardless of having legally married gay family members that I’m compelled to fight for, I find the invasiveness and molestation of my own marriage by the people pushing for bigotry to be legally incorporated into that contract to be incredibly offensive and angering.
As for Elizabeth’s arguments, they aren’t reasonable or well researched, they are misappropriated studies applied in a nonsensical way to a situation that is not a requirement of legal marriage to begin with (child rearing).
And to the ‘they choose to be in same sex relationships’, that’s right. That is their right to do, and our obligation to accomodate in regards to their civil rights - to do otherwise is unfair discrimination - period/full-stop/end of story. Bottom line - you are a bigot, Elizabeth is a bigot and if you don’t like that characterization, my advice to you is to stop with the bigotry.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2005 at 4:06 am
No single sexed pair can be the parents of a child. Presumably, you mean “legal parent”? in a genderless way that would denote a home that has two adults intimate sexually, and otherwise, but incapable of providing the child either a mother or a father at home.
So you believe people cannot adopt? The only parent is a biological parent, and those who adopt a child and raising it are just deluding themselves that they can ever be a parent to the child.
This comment was written by VK.Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2005 at 6:00 am
One cannot claim that someone will bring about harm to children for no other reason than they have a specific sexual orientation and expect to be seen as treating “gay men and lesbian women with dignity and respect.” The message being delivered (one that other minorities and feminists are quite familiar with) is that “we will support you so long as you stay within the roles we have defined as acceptable.”
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2005 at 6:27 am
Res -
*sigh* I give up, I truely give up … “a different view of reason and logic”? Where on earth can I start with something like that? You’re shifting the goal-posts because you can’t justify your position. I can’t discuss with someone like that. It’s just truely beyond the pale.
You’re just going to continue to be an apologist for people like Elizabeth and F. Rottles and their ilk no matter what we put on the table here. This is the last point and I refuse to waste anymore energy on trying to dissuade you if you are honestly going to state something like that.
Oiy.
This comment was written by Sarah in Chicago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2005 at 6:30 am
Plus gays and lesbians can already adopt as singles and/or have access to IVF, as well, as, obviously!, having their own children in the good old pre-technology fashion, and even if you believe oh the horror oh the poor children, you can’t stop it, so the reason to deny official married status to those seeking it is even less convincing. It’s just about being obsessed with the form of marriage rather than its substance.
PS - on “social science indicates” - it’s not strictly science and there is no such a thing as one universal social science, there are different theories and different views and no research is ever unbiased because what is found relies on the choice of factors being observed.
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2005 at 7:41 am
“I can’t discuss with someone like that. It’s just truely beyond the pale.”
Funny, I was feeling the same about you. If you are unwilling to consider that maybe you aren’t in total grasp of all information and logic and that you bring your own particular sets of biases to the table, than it is no use suggesting there is a “third way” of looking at things. In that way, you are no different than the people you criticize.
All I am saying is it is possible that there is a world beyond “homophobic” and “enlightened progressive” and it is possible that people, like Elizabeth, live somewhere in the middle. That middle may be informed by homophobia–just as your world view is cluttered by some level of homophobia–but that homophobia isn’t the driving force. I recognize that doesn’t fit into your view of things, though, so clearly we are talking over each other.
This comment was written by Res Ipsa.Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2005 at 7:53 am
All I am saying is it is possible that there is a world beyond “homophobic”? and “enlightened progressive”? and it is possible that people, like Elizabeth, live somewhere in the middle.
As we lawyers like to say, argumentative–anything’s possible. “People” vary a great deal in their opinions. Most of them do not hold forth as pro-marriage authorities, and most of them do not present intellectually dishonest and inconsistent arguments.
A discussion about whether Elizabeth is or isn’t a homophobe is a nice distraction from the real point, but it’s not as important as recognizing that her arguments fall flat.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2005 at 7:56 am
thanks Mythago, precisely :)
This comment was written by Sarah in Chicago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2005 at 8:05 am
I agree completely, myth, and I agree her arguments fall flat.
This comment was written by Res Ipsa.Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2005 at 11:08 am
The reason, I think, that we’re debating her homophobia is that she’s not an ignorant person or one unused to debate. So when her arguments not only fall flat, but rely on bad data and are self-contradictory despite her access to (and being presented with) good information, it raises more than a little inference of bad faith.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
Kim,
marriage (the legal variety) is something that has had a fluid definition to adjust to the progress and enlightenment of society at large
Me thinks you have misreferenced “cultural protocol” as definition, as the law deals with the protocol of marriage/state interaction almost entirely.
where exactly do you get the right to define marriage for all others outside of the legal constrict?
Oddly, this argument appears to be wielded to gain authority rather than argue that no such authority exists. This is a trick teenagers use frequently and it works for them just as poorly as it does for you here.
It [the marriage contract] did not define what sort of sex I could have within my marriage, whether or not I was obligated to have children, or whether or not I needed any religious approval.
Fantastic argument that marriage is not the sole property of religions. In fact marriage though it has significant religious value has significant secular value also. I appreciate you pointing that out.
As far as any chastity requirement in marriage I believe the marriage contract can be dissolved when sex outside of the marriage proves one of the members infidelity. Yes you are limited in the sex you can have. The limitations of the partner usually provides the boundaries. One could continue to argue how this interpersonal relationship or compromise and limits between two sexes provides benefits to household governance as well as sex, but I digress.
The argument about obligation for children is an interesting one. However, it happens to be that many contracts are never actuated because the conditions predicated in the contract do not materialize. For instance I have a contract that someone will pay for a new car should I crash mine. One needn’t require me to crash my car before the contract is valid however. Same for having children in marriage. It isn’t a contract to have children, and not having children doesn’t invalidate it. However, should I demand that the insurance company replace my car and they find that I never had one in the first place that would subject me to charges of fraud.
–
VK,
The only parent is a biological parent, and those who adopt a child and raising it are just deluding themselves that they can ever be a parent to the child.
Just what do you suggest proves they could never be a parent to the child?
I don’t see F.Rottles or anyone here suggesting that only biological parents can raise children. I’m not sure how this is supposed to answer the point about impersonating marriage is a false-flag benefit for children either. Please clarify.
–
noodles,
Plus gays and lesbians can already adopt as singles and/or have access to IVF, as well, as, obviously!, having their own children in the good old pre-technology fashion, and even if you believe oh the horror oh the poor children, you can’t stop it, so the reason to deny official married status to those seeking it is even less convincing.
Poor children is right. I’m not a fan of the “unwanted baby industry” being cheered for in your post. Creating unwanted children just to feed the consumer need of those desperate to accessorize their impersonations of marriage? That’s just not right.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
Methinks I didn’t misreference it at all. The legal definition of marriage is the one that matters. The way you define your marriage, or I define mine is completely unique to our own circumstances and I can no more impose my definition on you, than you on me.
Many cultures have protocol for marriage, and more specifically religious cultures seem to thrive on marriage protocol. This does not mean, however, that religion or individual cultures can define for the larger group of married folks what model their marriage needs to use.
So in essence, someone denying you access to determining the nature and expectations of their own marriage, outside of the legal confines is acting sophmoric and like a trick-wielding teenager? That’s not really a great response, and I’d have to pretty much reflect the same sentiment of tsk-ing in your direction. This isn’t a good debunk of what I was saying, nor is it anywhere near solid enough to have any chastising merit on its own.
Err, no-fault divorce, anyone? Dissolution of a marriage can be done because Martha didn’t like how Ralph ate his peanut butter crackers in bed. As you and I have now both pointed out, the definition of a marriage outside of the legal expectations are soley at the discretion of the married couple.
Since sodomy laws have been overturned, pretty much any consentual ‘gay’ sex that might occur in same sex marriages is just as legal as any consentual straight sex. As for limitations, well, I realise that at no point soon will my husband and I engage in sex while swinging from a trapeze, however, that’s not exactly what the fight is about - and again, that’s limited not by the law, but by us. So what exactly is your point?
Beyond that, your whole insurance argument is just flat out goofy. I really don’t understand what you’re getting at here other than trying to make some convoluted argument against SSM that is attempting to seem academic. If I’m wrong or misreading, feel free to enlighten me, but your post really came off as ever-so-much posturing discriminatory bullshit.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2005 at 9:34 pm
I believe the marriage contract can be dissolved when sex outside of the marriage proves one of the members infidelity
I believe you need to learn a little bit about what marriage law actually says.
For example, that it varies by state. In most states, divorce is no-fault. You do not have to prove adultery to get a divorce. Yes, you can divorce if your spouse has sex outside of marriage. You can also divorce because you can’t stand the way your spouse hangs the toilet paper.
You don’t *have* to divorce because of infidelity. Unless you’re in one of the few states where adultery is a crime, sex outside of the marriage is entirely between the spouses.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2005 at 10:00 pm
Kim (basement variety!) said: “In being that marriage (the legal variety) is something that has had a fluid definition to adjust to the progress and enlightenment of society at large, where exactly do you get the right to define marriage for all others outside of the legal constrict?”
It would be helpful if you would please unpack that sentence for the sake of clarity.
Kim (basement variety!) said: “[My marriage contract] did not define what sort of sex I could have within my marriage, whether or not I was obligated to have children, or whether or not I needed any religious approval.”
The marital contract is not the entirety of the social institution. Neither are legal incidents, various government supplied benefits, and the like.
Kim (basement variety!) said: “As for Elizabeth’s arguments, they aren’t reasonable or well researched, they are misappropriated studies applied in a nonsensical way to a situation that is not a requirement of legal marriage to begin with (child rearing).”
Perhaps you have discussed the arguments and have come to some undisputable conclusions about it all. This is probably not the place to rehash what has convinced you, however, could you please provide a link to a fair exchange (pro and con) of the various sides of these arguments? Thanks.
Kim (basement variety!) said: “And to the ‘they choose to be in same sex relationships’, that’s right. That is their right to do, and our obligation to accomodate in regards to their civil rights - to do otherwise is unfair discrimination - period/full-stop/end of story.”
If it is a societal obligation, as you say, it can be expected that the rest of society outside of your own circle of friends and acquaintenances will have some say in the matter. Outside of my circle, as well, of course.
It is highly questionable that enactment of SSM is a civil rights issue for the non-marriagable combinations. You are convinced but your sayso does not make it so.
>> Kim (basement variety!): “Bottom line - you are a bigot, Elizabeth is a bigot and if you don’t like that characterization, my advice to you is to stop with the bigotry.”
That is not the bottom line, but it is very nearly the end of the line. I respect that a person takes the time, makes the effort, to contribute to the “progress and enlightenment” of society, however, hurling ad hominem attacks does not touch me nor, I would hope, Elizabeth M. Sadly, it degrades you and the contribution you aspire to make.
Place good grace above low blows and you’ll discover there is more to the bottomline than the periods, full-stops, and declarations that the story is at an end.
I’ll not comment further in this thread but I will look for your response (hopefully not a vitriolic reaction, but a response) and promise to look into the link (or references) or valid points you might offer.
This comment was written by F. Rottles.Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2005 at 11:30 pm
Okay, point by point:
The definition of marriage in the context of this question is the legal definition, since all other definitions are based purely on individual (or community based but not legally binding) interpretation. It’s your right to dislike and not approve of whomever you choose, however, it is not your right to legislate to the exclusion of law abiding tax paying citizens.
But it isn’t the social institution we are talking about here. Again, you can only define the social institution on a personal level. I’m a straight, married woman. My marriage to my husband and our approach to it outside of our legal obligations is based on our beliefs, not yours. You don’t have to approve of our marriage and your church does not have to marry us, but your feelings on our marriage has no bearing on anything other than you.
First, this was in answer to my stating that Elizabeth misused research in an attempt to bolster her argument. She used studies based not on children coming from gay households, but instead children coming from single parent households. Besides this inappropriate use of information, this argument (as usual) neglects to address the undeniable fact that marriage and child rearing are seperate issues. Do you deny this?
Further, I have yet to come across a fair argument that was against same sex marriage. I cannot provide a link to something that I have yet to see. I simply do not see any argument as fair that bolsters the legislation of bigotry against others.
You’re welcome to try to provide me with such an argument. Include how it would personally affect your family and those around you to include SSM into the definition of marriage; tangible things outside of religious ideas - not speculative or moral arguments about being gay. I can provide tangible benefits to SSM, now the onus is on you to provide reasons that will show how not discriminating will cause tangible detriments.
Society as a general rule attempts to progress and learn as we are confronted by past mistakes. It’s a generally accepted notion (I should hope!) that civil rights be granted to all law abiding tax paying citizens. Being gay isn’t a crime. Gays, like straights generally are law abiding tax paying citizens. Marriage is a civil union between two consenting adults that have chosen to commit to each other in the eyes of the law, taking on responsiblities to one another in return for the benefits it provides.
I’m sorry you feel that way, yet there is no way that I cannot look at anti-SSM arguments and not see bigotry. I have yet to read any valid justification for denial. I’ve read TONS of justifications, but none are able to move away from the notion that people either fear or dislike/disapprove of gays to the point that they are willing to legislate rules around them to the extent of denying them the same protections for their families as straight people. You then get the argument ‘well why can’t they just get civil unions’ - but the fact is, all marriages are civil unions. Only some are religious. If your argument was ‘they should not be able to force religions to accept them’, I’d be right there with you, shouting ‘amen’, because I feel your right to religious freedom is absolute and shouldn’t be defined by my own religious beliefs or expectations.
Of late on this blog, I’ve seen a few people try to invoke the ‘you’re using ad hominem’ inappropriately. This is one of those cases. Ad hominem attacks are based around fallacies and do not address the issue in dispute, but instead the people in the dispute. The problem with this situation is that the issue is the people in the dispute and the bigotry they are attempting to enforce upon society at large. I know it’s hard to be called a bigot. It’s an ugly word, but to me, the sentiment is even uglier, and it’s downright dangerous when people are trying to obfuscate it in faux academics.
So why do you feel you aren’t a bigot, being that you find the term vitriolic and ad hominem, and how do you feel that it isn’t bigotry that is at the core of these issues? Before you answer that, please leave children out of the argument, because first, marriage as I noted above is not about child rearing - that is only an aspect of some marriages, and unless you speak as the child of a gay person, as a gay person with children or have some unknown studies that the rest of us are not privy to that accurately addresses parenting and SSM households, you aren’t in a position to moralize over their well being or ultimate adjustment to life at large.
I find that appealing to my sense of good grace as if there under the notion that there is some hidden argument out there that I’m missing or unaware of is invalid without revealing your hand. So you feel you’ve been dealt low blows by my use of the word bigot, and general unwillingness to coddle you with charitable interpretations of things that can really only be read one way - that’s unfortunate, but as I have stated prior you leave me with no other choice. Now, if you are able to come back with some genuinely real reason that SSM is detrimental to society at large (IE: A way this will affect your family directly as part of society other than the concern that it affirms being gay as being okay) then bring it on - I’m ripe for a new perspective, as this one is particularly distressing and depressing. Otherwise, I’m afraid you’re bringing and have brought nothing to the debate but more discrimination based moralizing with the agenda of keeping the rights of gays lesser than that of the rest of ‘normal’ society.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2005 at 11:37 pm
Now, if you are able to come back with some genuinely real reason that SSM is detrimental to society at large (IE: A way this will affect your family directly as part of society other than the concern that it affirms being gay as being okay) then bring it on
As you just finished eloquently explaining, these are two different things. “Society at large” and my family directly are two different entities; it’s easy for something to be good for one, bad for the other.
Which arguments do you want, the ones about society at large, or the ones about my own little cell?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2005 at 11:44 pm
Hmm, to get at it more specifically, what I’m suggesting is that the argument is that society at large is affected (explain how), and in that, currently married families will be affected.
As I’ve explained prior, my family is directly affected by the legalization, in a positive manner. Many families being impacted positively can be seen as a benefit to society, I would think (feel free to disagree).
So what I’m asking for is conclusive non-religious reasoning as to why society, and in effect, families are affected. How do you see this negatively impacting your family or my family?
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 21st, 2005 at 8:53 am
OK, I’ll put together some arguments for you and re-comment in the next day or 2.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 21st, 2005 at 10:45 am
Kim,
The legal definition of marriage is the one that matters. The way you define your marriage, or I define mine is completely unique to our own circumstances
Agreed. The legal definition provides what the state views marriage to be and that is the one that matters. We shouldn’t get wrapped into conflating protocol with definition, or who else finds interest in the definition of marriage. As this is discussed as a political issue, it is the legal definition that we should consider.
This does not mean, however, that religion or individual cultures can define for the larger group
One would have expected you to support your claim of a fluid definition of marriage. I suppose I was expecting examples, timelines, etc… It wouldn’t be hard to do I’ve seen people try to before. Unfortunately the changes I’ve seen suggested in marriage have all been protocols and in no wise changes in definition.
So perhaps though it is dissapointing it is not suprising to see you instead of supporting the claim resort to re-iterating your ipse dixit. Repetition does not validate claims, Kim. But at least it protects them from scrutiny, no?
So in essence, someone denying you access to determining the nature and expectations of their own marriage, outside of the legal confines is acting sophmoric and like a trick-wielding teenager?
Generalizations are fun crevaces for cock-roaches to hide in when their views are subjected to the light of day. However, I did not make a generalization, you did. I said what I said about a specific argument you weilded. But I can say like the above that it is at least a formidable attempt you have made. Lets look at that argument again and see for ourselves just how sophmoric it sounds…
where exactly do you get the right to define marriage for all others outside of the legal constrict?
I rest.
This isn’t a good debunk of what I was saying
Hmm, interesting. True, maybe teenagers are correct in demanding accredidation of every imposition. And besides, who also weilds an argument in no wise discredits your use of it. For instance, if religions find marriage important that in no wise means that the man-woman relationship that is the foundation of society is a “religious” argument.
Lucky for me that it was the self-contradiction of the argument that provides its discredidation:
Perhaps it would have been simpler to point out …
Err, no-fault divorce, anyone?
There are states that recognize no-fault divorce. One wonders just how a no-fault divorce can be construed as license to re-define marriage however. Let alone become a counter point to the chastity requirements that are commonly placed on marriage that you seem to have insinuated don’t exist:
Indeed the requirement (as I mentioned) to not violate the other member’s chastity is a protection and enforcement on the marriage that can bring dissolution.
your whole insurance argument is just flat out goofy
Hmm, I’ll leave you to re-reading it in order to find its relevance to your argument that there needs to be an obligation to have children for marriage to be recognized for its procreative potential. Judging by your reply, I’m not too sure there is much I can do to help you understand. I’ll leave it then to your personal study on this issue.
Perhaps these two articles will be of benefit, they speak quite a bit about procreation requirements in marriage:
Homosexuality is not a Handicap and its sister article, part 2
But you are not the first to hold up your own inability to comprehend as a counter-argument :)
–
mythago,
In most states, divorce is no-fault.
Again, poor children.
You don’t *have* to divorce because of infidelity.
Agreed.
__
Kim, back to you;
it is not your right to legislate to the exclusion of law abiding tax paying citizens.
If I have it right, it would be a logical not physical or constitutional inability to write any legislation that excludes anything but “law abiding” citizens. Those that don’t obey the law are never excluded by the law.
Perhaps I’m trying to hard to make a point for you, and I should just let you keep working that argument on your own until it passes even the most basic scrutiny of reason.
You don’t have to approve of our marriage and your church does not have to marry us
Hmm, this is tantamount to excusing the attack on the WTC because “you don’t have to watch it and you don’t have to approve of it”. Perhaps I will again just leave you to study the issue out better so that you can develop a more salient point on the issue of marriage. Certainly “approval” is not what is asked for or intended in recognizing marriages.
If anything the only approval being asked for by same-sex couples impersonating marriages is the kind that a Science-Fiction writer or Magician might ask of their audience, only that is better called “willful suspension of disbelief” than approval.
Again, you can only define the social institution on a personal level.
Agreed. The protocols, behaviours and cultural aspects of marriage are for personal interpretation and discovery. But how you get from that point to demanding that the state impose acceptance of marriage impersonation is another (perhaps self-conficting) point entirely.
Again you seem to be arguing that others don’t have authority over a matter, but to then assume it gives you or another authority is a teenager’s trick and not an argument.
Further, I have yet to come across a fair argument that was against same sex marriage.
Judging by the arguments you’ve posited here, I would conclude that you have no argument for or against legally conflating same-sex impersonation of marriage with marriage. Why you are for it then in absense of argument for or against, I can only conclude, is a matter of your personal bias and bigotry.
Why your ignorance on a subject is considered reasoning to convince people to share your ignorance is beyond me.
–
Robert,
As you [Kim] just finished eloquently explaining, these are two different things. “Society at large”? and my family directly are two different entities; it’s easy for something to be good for one, bad for the other.
Agreed, that is a good way to put it. I’ve seen this debate as one framed against a grander question myself,
I feel at the heart we are discussing not what is important, but what is more important. Like discussing with a teenager that while it is important for them to have fun with their friends, it is is no excuse to neglect household chores. I see advocates screaming that if we don’t pander to their ideas of importance than we no longer love then, we hate them, and we are bigots.
–
Kim, back to you;
Many families being impacted positively can be seen as a benefit to society, I would think (feel free to disagree).
While the overall sentiment can be accepted, its application is messy. Very messy. Such logic was used by Sharky in subjecting the Shire to oppressive leadership in “The Return of the King”. Litterary and historical investigations of that ideology have produced a wealth if wisdom on the matter.
You may wish to read at least the first part of this.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 21st, 2005 at 11:36 am
On Lawn wrote:
On Lawn, I know you’re used to posting at Galios’ blog, where you’re free to make obnoxious and insulting comments like the above. That’s not the case here. Either learn to address others with respect, and without snarky personal insults, or you’ll quickly be banned from posting on my threads here.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 21st, 2005 at 12:03 pm
On Lawn (in reponse to Kim)
Kim: You don’t have to approve of our marriage and your church does not have to marry us
On LawnHmm, this is tantamount to excusing the attack on the WTC because “you don’t have to watch it and you don’t have to approve of it”?.
Could you possibly crank up your level of vile, insulting metaphors a bit more? I think some gay couples in Tierra Del Fuego were only mildly offended by that
Look, I lost someone I knew to the WTC attacks. I also have friends who’re legaly married, and are same sex couples.
You’re claiming my friends getting married is somehow the moral or social equivilant to the destruction of the Twin Towers? Same sex marriage is NOT causing anyone any harm that’s even vaguley comprable to a mass terrorist attack. The level of insult in the analogy is enormous.
But thanks for making the anti-SSM crowd look like they’re about to have hysterics and explode every time a queer couple gets a few more legal rights. There are days I wish it were true.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
June 21st, 2005 at 12:52 pm
Again, poor children.
How do children benefit when, to divorce, Mommy has to prove in a court of law, in the public eye, that Daddy was an adulterer (or vice versa)? Is it supposed to help children if the kind of expensive, ugly battles we see in custody matters spread to divorce proceedings?
legally conflating same-sex impersonation of marriage with marriage
If barriers to same-sex marriage are removed, there’s no “conflation” of anything. It’s all marriage. Why that terrifies you into an excess of pointless verbal runaround, I can’t fathom.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 21st, 2005 at 1:09 pm
Ampersand,
I know you’re used to posting at Galios’ blog, where you’re free to make obnoxious and insulting comments like the above.
Is that how you run things here?
Or is that how you run things here?
So just to get things straight, the inability to comprehend the argument is Kim’s self admission. Is her lack of comprehension then the offending remark or my supposition that she intends it to be a counter argument?
Obnoxious is in the eye of the beholder, it would seem.
Addressing the argument from ignorance fallacy in Kim’s reply is a “snarky personal insult,” but if I’d have called her a bigot and a homophobe that counts for legitimate debate?
I don’t know if anyone would consider “civilized debate” to be what you are cultivating here with your rebuke. If you have a beef with Galois, you can take it there.
–
Josh,
The point was not an establishment of moral equivalence. Your determination to find some homosexual shibboleth of victimization in my writings has caused you to miss the point entirely. The point remains that “approval” and recognition are secondary considerations to the damage caused.
You’re claiming my friends getting married is somehow the moral or social equivilant to the destruction of the Twin Towers?
They would be orthogonal to each other in reality, perhaps an apples to oranges comparison if you will.
But I’m not into making comparisons. The impersonation of marriage is fraud on the individual scale and on a social scale a demand of sufferance of children and the handicapped for the forwarding of gender segregationist ideals.
Look, I lost someone I knew to the WTC attacks.
As do I, a few actually. I also know many more people who are the products of being raised in households that tried to call themselves marriages but really weren’t marriage in form or intent, let alone contradictory to marriage as same-sex couplings are.
There are victims to these actions that we should not demean or ignore. The children and the handicapped are two such groups beyond themselves.
Same sex marriage is NOT causing anyone any harm
Ibid.
But thanks for making the anti-SSM crowd look like they’re about to have hysterics
Not that the self-absorbed can-we-call-her-a-homophobe-now debate over Elizabeth wasn’t scintillating ;)
While you perceive hysterical weakness in those you consider ideological adversaries, perhaps it is your own insensitivity and crudeness that you should be contemplating. As Mirage from The Incredibles points out, “Valuing life is not weakness … and disregarding it is not strength”.
Because when it comes down to it, I’m as moderate and dispassionate person as the next. At first the ridicule would get to me, but these days the evidence is so great that to submit to your ridicule would be at the detrement of reality.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 21st, 2005 at 1:22 pm
How do children benefit when, to divorce, Mommy has to prove in a court of law, in the public eye, that Daddy was an adulterer
This is all a very interesting but orthogonal debate about no-fault divorce. A debate which I have judged for myself that no-fault divorce is harder on the children than anyone else. A number of sites have taken up this debate, and you are welcome to peruse them at your leisure, Google is your friend.
Essentially what you point at is not news, but also has no impact on the discussion.
If barriers to same-sex marriage are removed, there’s no “conflation”? of anything. It’s all marriage.
Wow! I’m not sure how to reply to that especially amidst the sensitive feelings being nurtured here. I’ll defer to m-w.com for this one…
Verbal run-around could describe what is going on here, perhaps I would say you attempted a verbal end-around.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 21st, 2005 at 1:40 pm
No, she didn’t admit anything of the sort, either in the bit you quoted or elsewhere. But your inability to comprehend that - or, if you did comprehend it, your willingness to lie about what Kim said - is strike two.
And no, I don’t think calling people bigots and homophobes is legitimate debate - not even when the person so addressed is, in fact, a bigot and a homophobe. I’d rather that people didn’t make such comments, and I’ve said so time and time again. So what? This blog isn’t an open debate forum. And yes, there definitely is a double-standard. I don’t generally ban feminists and allies for being insulting (although there have been a few exceptions); I do ban people who are anti-equality and anti-feminist for being insulting.
(On the other hand, people who are polite - even if they’re people who are hated by virtually 90% of the people who post here - get to post here a long, long time, even if they disagree with me. If you read “Alas” for a while, you’ll notice some examples.)
If you can’t deal with that double-standard, then by all means, don’t post on my threads. There are folks who are anti-SSM who I want to post on my threads, because they’re serious people with terrific intellects who can put together good arguments; but in my opinion you’re not one of those people.
My threads, my rules. If you can’t learn to leave out the insults and the lies, then just leave.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 21st, 2005 at 1:42 pm
On Lawn, perhaps you need to refresh you knowledge of the social contract.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 21st, 2005 at 3:03 pm
On Lawn:
This is telling. You insist on letting us know that you’ve seen people grow up in dysfunctional households, and then compare those to same sex households.
So how, other than in terms of chromosomes, are same sex couples so deficient as parents? bBecause EVERY same sex household with children I know tries harder than regular households that have heterosexual parents. And I know quite a few children being raised in SSM situations.
You’re talking as if there were some platonic “marriage” that existed in the sky, and that it’s an unchanging ideal. Of course, that’s not true.
And finally,
Bull. The comparison was so blatantly insulting that I didn’t have to look for offense. It was obvious.
Think about it for a second. If you had wandered into an African American civil rights discussion, conducted by African Americans , and made some minstrel show reference, or mentioned “The Bell Curve”, people would have been calling you a bigot in about ten seconds.
People here in Amp’s blog have been remarkably tolerant (out of respect to the blogmeister,) and you’ve been overbearingly smug, insulting, and demeaning after being reminded of the civility rules.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
June 21st, 2005 at 3:47 pm
Amp,
No, she didn’t admit anything of the sort, either in the bit you quoted or elsewhere.
Allow me to quote then post #104:
The understanding was provided with articles that better explain the position forwarded. She continued in a reply to F.Rottles (post #107) and pointed out how her lack of understanding supports her conclusions:
Perhaps if she understood them (reading is as much comprehension and understanding as it is recognizing words) she would see that such a simplistic and absolutist stance is unwarranted.
If you can’t deal with that double-standard, then by all means, don’t post on my threads.
Very telling. Far be it from me to tell you what standards to apply whether fairly or asymmetrically. But consistency from you makes not stepping on your toes that much easier.
–
Q,
perhaps you need to refresh you knowledge of the social contract.
Social contract, hmmm. Is there something in particular you wish to reference?
–
Josh,
You insist on letting us know that you’ve seen people grow up in dysfunctional households, and then compare those to same sex households.
Hmm, this is telling indeed.
EVERY same sex household with children I know tries harder than regular households that have heterosexual parents.
I wonder if that is the bigotry showing that I always expected to lurk under the surface here.
When a child asks their mother why they don’t have a father there are stories about abuse, death, and other heinous acts that one can point to that are beyond the mother’s control. What prey-tell is the reason Rosey O’Donnell points to when her child misses having a Dad?
You’re talking as if there were some platonic “marriage”? that existed in the sky
Platonic? In the sky?
How do you see that from what I’m talking about?
Bull. The comparison was so blatantly insulting that I didn’t have to look for offense. It was obvious.
Do tell.
you’ve been overbearingly smug, insulting, and demeaning after being reminded of the civility rules
According to Amp, they are a double standard based on what he agrees with, and I applaud him for his honesty. I respect him for it, and harbor no resentment of his actions.
It truly is entirely okay, people have their own websites to enact their own set of guidelines. But don’t be deluded that they are “civility” rules any more than group think-enforcement.
But having said that, I’m not sure what you mean by “smug” et. all. I feel strongly about my beliefs, forward them with adequate example and reasoning always and I am attentive to positive feedback that requests specific clarifications.
But I can’t help but notice that without substantial debate people will often turn to discussing people. I am left, without any real retort to my arguments, to discussing myself and others.
Is this really how y’all want to run a debate? I have many salient points being ignored to chase after personalities and attitudes. If you want peace don’t talk about war. If you want war don’t talk about peace. And if you don’t want to discuss reason then discuss people, I suppose.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 21st, 2005 at 5:06 pm
Okay, I considered really digging in and trying to decipher all of the comments you’ve made since my last post, but find myself exhausted at the prospect of decoding and then debunking your posts.
What I can say is this;
I read your ‘article’ where you attempted to show authority towards ‘procreation requirements’ in marriage. My husband and I both kind of went back and forth between being amused and amazed at what you’ve stated.
First;
I wanted to point out your use of letting in the riff raff when you referred to opening the doors for SSM. You then applied the ‘we’ll be forced to possibly keep the doors open to let in even more riff raff’ and used the example of polygamy. I’ve got to hand it to you, at least you didn’t use golden retrievers.
Second;
Your argument based on why children are a requirement in marriage is really funny. I almost mean that as a compliment, because wow….
So lets break it down a bit - first of all, gay couples are attempting to con their way into hetero rights, and if they get them, it will be nothing short of ‘pulling a fast one’, as if the marital benefits gained are all spoils of some big elaborate con rather than just the byproducts of, well, marriage.
Second, you draw the comparison that is often made between gay couples and infertile couples and go on to define infertile couples as handicapped, and then go even more off the deep end as you attempt to make the case that gay couples are trying to gain access to marriage by pretending they are handicapped, and therefore commandeering the rights of handicapped people. You then compare it to people taking handicapped parking spaces and imply that marriage benefits are finite, and we have to be careful lest we give out too many marriage benefit goody bags.
But wow. I’ll close with one of my favorite bits from your post that you linked me to:
No, you’re right, you don’t harbor any malice or bigotry towards gay people. Wow, wow, just wow.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 21st, 2005 at 5:08 pm
Oh, I forgot to ask in my post, via my husband:
“So does this mean infertile couples should get handicapped parking spots too?”
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 21st, 2005 at 5:38 pm
You’re expecting this to be some horrible traumatic event in a child’s life. It’s not. It’s a myth perpetrated by the right wing. Every same sex household I know of deals with this, and every time I’ve heard of it, the child’s response has been something along the lines of “It’s no big deal”.
I’m here talking about actual children raised by same sex parents, and you’re dealing with some hypothetical trauma you seem to think must exist, but have no evidence for.
This is a wonderful metaphor for the majority of the alleged ‘polite’ detractors from SSM. You claim you’re polite, but really, you’re just not. All of you I’ve ever encoutered keep having some underlying bigotry, which I’ve pointed out in detail. I’m not just slinging the word bigot around. I’m always careful to point out the behavior that makes someone a bigot.
I pointed out exactly where you were being insulting. Were you not paying attention? Or do you somehow think “Do tell” is an apropriate response to, as I pointed out, the equivialnt of making racist comments in a forum run by African Americans? There’s your smugness. It’s also in the assumption that you’re still the privelaged one, that you deserve it by virtue of who you care to fuck, and that you’re allowed to make dispariging remarks about same sex households raising kids without referncing any real examples.
Smug, condescending, and insulting. Those aren’t personal insults, they’re descriptions of the way you’ve been acting. And if you’re attempting an actual debate, your tone is so insulting that what you’re saying is mostly getting lost.
But for the msot part, people here have been debating your points AND calling you on your insults. It’s just that I’m not content to sit around and let you get your ya-yas off by fag bashing.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
June 21st, 2005 at 6:30 pm
Onlawn, just finished another of your blog entries on SSM. Since you’re busy debating word semantics and whether people are smart or stupid, I figured I’d take the liberty of posting an excerpt for you:
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 22nd, 2005 at 7:16 am
I’ll defer to m-w.com for this one…
The legal system is grounded in the Constitution, not the Merriam-Webster dictionary. I don’t suppose you noticed that your posted entry says nothing about same-sex marriage.
No-fault divorce is ‘orthogonal’ only in that you sensed you were losing the argument and so ran away from it. No-fault divorce is an enormous change from ‘traditional’ marriage.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 22nd, 2005 at 10:50 am
“The very act seizing the right to define marriage (or make it purposefully ambiguously defined) for everyone else is oppressive. ”
Wow, what an example of doublethink!
“The assumption of priveleged entitlement from government at the expense of others is oppressive. Many wish to frame this debate as “I want to marry whomever I want”?. That maybe in and of itself that is a noble cause, but when sexual preference is the very core marriage it is vanity and selfishness.”
But isn’t sexual preference (het) the core value conservatives are using in order to define marriage as “between a man and a woman”??? Or is a sexual preference only a sexual preference if it’s same-sex?
“And what is painted as disadvantage is a barricade built into our anatomies to protect children from those who wish the government to privilege gender discrimination. ”
Ehhhh????? Run that one by me again? How the bloody hell is that in any way “gender” discrimination? Which gender is being discriminated against in this scenario?
One question, On Lawn: what about straights who marry and have zero intention of having or raising children? Would we, under your fantasy regime, be stripped of our married status?
Also, and I admit this is a nitpick, but it’s driving me nuts:
This comment was written by Crys T.it’s “V-A-U-D-E-V-I-L-L-E”.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 22nd, 2005 at 11:21 am
Kim,
you attempted to show authority towards ‘procreation requirements’ in marriage
There are a great many things to consider about “procreation requirements” but the “authority” towards them is not one of them.
If anything the point was that requiring a test for fertility steps on a great many liberties and graces the lack of a test is in no wise to be construed that marriage is not a procreative institution. None of these concerns did you disagree with, except to say at one point they were “off the wall”.
As I pointed out previously in quoting a movie character, valuing life is not “hysteria” or a weakness. Yet your portrayal of it makes one wonder at your basic ability to be humane. Invectives don’t make an argument, yet your use of ridicule and cajoling as an argument makes me question it further.
I wanted to point out your use of letting in the riff raff when you referred to opening the doors for SSM.
Alas, there is so much you could have written on that article as the posting is open. But then that would mean you’re readership read it also. So allow me to rectify that for you. I quote from this article.
Clicking on those links finds three articles on Slate Magazine written by two different authors. A search on Google for “slippery slope marriage” finds many many more. Should your feigned compliment mean anything I would expect you to have at least attributed it correctly.
But this brings up a question, the slippery slope argument is a common one. Surely you have an opinion on polygamy, do you think that the arguments in favor of your position do or do not apply to polygamy? In other words, do you consider them riff-raff amongst your cause or do you exclude them logically also?
as if the marital benefits gained are all spoils of some big elaborate con rather than just the byproducts of, well, marriage.
Ahh yes, another great argument of the teen-ager, “As if”. Should such language be employed it would be to point out how same-sex couples act “as if” they are married expecting the byproducts of marriage. And just how elaborate the con is, well, is only a measure of your own simple mindedness. But again lets find the direct quote:
However much that resembles your commentary is something for the reader to answer for themselves. But answer also just how good you feel about conflating homosexuality with the handicapped.
Second, you draw the comparison that is often made between gay couples and infertile couples
A comparison that we find in your writings no less. However I note that for the most part that whether or not you really understand what I wrote, you do not disagree. “Off the deep end” is a great colloquialism, but one that you seem to through in just in case the reader mistakes even your re-quoting of my position as endorsement. Honestly, even with the invective you sound at a loss to disagree.
you don’t harbor any malice or bigotry towards gay people.
This is another interesting statement. Previously you stated that, “there is no way that I cannot look at anti-SSM arguments and not see bigotry.” The reason for this is your simplistic metric for judging bigotry, “I’ve read TONS of justifications, but none are able to move away from the notion that people either fear or dislike/disapprove of gays to the point that they are willing to legislate rules around them to the extent of denying them”.
So, according to you the results justify the claim. If in any way the outcome doesn’t meat your preconceived notion of reality, then it is bigoted. Oddly enough, demanding the outcome to meet preconceived notions is not just bigotry, it is the definition of “prejudice”.
And the fact that your sole metric of prejudice is some line drawn in the sand where you believe homosexual benefits should be then, handicapped be damned. Perhaps you feel the same way Amp does then and include children in this grist for your oh-so-noble mill?
Indeed, if it doesn’t fit the outcome you wish then why support a balanced test?
So does this mean infertile couples should get handicapped parking spots too?
Folks, there you have it. Even the infertile are the brunt of bad jokes by gay-advocates. It is a wonder and a shame the extent people will strike at the infirmities of others for such petty gain.
I’ll answer the question, “No”. The deaf don’t get handicapped parking spots either. Neither do people who have a number of cognitive disorders that provide unique testing techniques, etc… I’m not sure what point your husband is trying to make other than showing just how simplistic his mind is in conflating every handicap as needing privileged parking.
Josh,
You’re expecting this to be some horrible traumatic event in a child’s life. It’s not.
Rosie has noted that she feels for her child’s plight in wanting a father. It was the reason she related the story in the first place. I appreciate Rosie’s honesty.
It’s a myth perpetrated by the right wing.
Chalk another dismissal up to the VRWC. It is wrong because the ever elusive and terrible “they” want you to think that way. Unfortunately my mind doesn’t respond to such cajoling.
However the self-contradiction of you calling it a “myth” in the same paragraph that you say “Every same sex household I know of deals with this” is not lost on me. Not that absolutism should be taken that seriously from you as you also stated the transparently bigoted statement, “EVERY same sex household with children I know tries harder than regular households that have heterosexual parents”. But I digress…
Children raised without a father and mother do take a hit in development. It becomes an obstacle to overcome in every household it happens in. You would obviously like to marginalize it, and have done so in your anecdotal experience. But I warn against such willful blindness. The studies that are the core of this article point to the problems faced when a child is deficient of equal gender representation. Amp, and apparently yourself, find this easily dismissed as not applying to homosexual couplings because, after all, there are two of them (although the jury is apparently out whether there should be more than two or not, according to Kim). But numbers don’t replace gender. It is “alas, a non-sequitor” to suggest otherwise.
All of you I’ve ever encountered keep having some underlying bigotry, which I’ve pointed out in detail… I pointed out exactly where you were being insulting.
Applying the same conclusory logic we’ve seen from Kim and Amp no doubt. If Homosexuals don’t wind up ahead of children and the handicapped, then it is an example of bigotry. You know, not only does marriage mean less when applied ignorantly, but so does bigotry.
Unfortunately in lieu of specific reference I am left to watch you vaguely wave your hand to substantiate a very malicious accusation.
And if you’re attempting an actual debate, your tone is so insulting that what you’re saying is mostly getting lost.
Oh my, now you accuse me of feigning actual debate because you can’t handle the truth.
It’s just that I’m not content to sit around and let you get your ya-yas off by fag bashing.
Its a shame that you take an objective and reasonable look at the harm done by policies you are advocating as “fag bashing”. It doesn’t come to the conclusion you wish, it doesn’t pat you on the back for its oppression of people who are already at the mercy of the state, and you take it as an insult.
If my points are being “lost” I submit it is done with intellectual dishonesty of those that wish to marginalize, dismiss, and otherwise deflect criticism.
Kim, back to you;
I figured I’d take the liberty of posting an excerpt for you:
I appreciate it. For anyone interested the whole post can be found (starting at page 1) here
As with all articles comments are open to everyone who wishes to disagree with any points raised.
mythago,
The legal system is grounded in the Constitution, not the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Unfortunately with an effort to let you find the argument yourself you missed it. True, the legal system is grounded in the Constitution. You will find that the dictionary is rooted in reality.
You stated:
Perhaps you can show me then in the constitution how removing barriers and lumping everything under one name is not conflation, because as noted the dictionary calls that conflation. If you wish to point to the constitution in defense then by all means show me where the constitution takes on the dictionary on the use of that term.
I’ll be specific here, and do some landholding. I didn’t want to point out how yet another gay-advocate has once again held up the blindness of their own lack of comprehension as a light for others to follow. Kim did it and you did to, you ended that paragraph with, “Why that terrifies you into an excess of pointless verbal runaround, I can’t fathom.” Well technically the ignorance was just a way to sluff off yet another invective as an argument, but the tactic is still one of referencing your own ignorance.
So to hold your hand and show you what others saw, you are directly contradicting the dictionary. Its such a glaring error that words fail me to describe it. And to compound the problem you apparently grandstanding on it with constitutional rhetoric.
So lets make this simple, do you realize your error in saying “If barriers to same-sex marriage are removed, there’s no “conflation”? of anything. It’s all marriage.”
No-fault divorce is ‘orthogonal’ only in that you sensed you were losing the argument and so ran away from it.
As a potential for a vastly more limiting requirement to limiting types of sexual activity the reference to “no-fault-divorce” made my argument stronger as previously noted. Why would I run away from it? As with the previous contradiction of yours, I was flaberghasted that you referenced it at all. And what the constitution has to do with “no-fault-divorce” is yet to be seen, but then it was only a reference made as recently as your last post.
Either way, you wanted to debate how no-fault-divorce impacted children. Fine, there are plenty of venues to do that. But I see it as orthogonal at the moment.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 22nd, 2005 at 11:22 am
Oops, forgot a closing tag after the quote from mythiago. My appologies for the confusion. The blockquote should have ended at the end of the italics.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 22nd, 2005 at 11:34 am
An interesting note about how abuse of other’s priveledges is harmful can be found from, coincidentally, San Francisco. The issue? Handicapped parking spots…
Though by no means is a trend being inferred here, as an analogy of the gay-advocacy of conflating their relationships with marriage, this is excellent commentary.
But look folks, I’m not here to bash gays. I’m not here to rob them of anything. I’m only here to protect the children, the handicapped and marriage as an institution in itself. Unfortunately, though we all wish it were not so, the honest among us will recognize that you can’t have it both ways.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 22nd, 2005 at 12:00 pm
That’s because there is no harm being done. You’re making shit up, and everyone here knows it. The whole “children do better with a mother and father then they do in with same sex parents” line is crap. There’s no proof for it. Bringing in a media quote by Rosie O’Donnel is crap too. I *personaly* know several same sex couples who’re parnets. They don’t regret thier child not having a father, and the children don’t regret who their parents are.
Of course, if I were a parent in a same sex relationship, I’d never let you near my kid. Your ideas are too poisonous, and it’s obvious you’ve got no real respect for GLBT people.
As I said, I’m responding to your points *and* your condescending tone. And yeah, I think your points are phony, and you’re just here to exercise your bigotry. But I’m still responding to them, if only to display the sort of contempt anti-SSM activists have, and how phony the respect they pretend to have for GLBT people is.
I’m not here to rob them of anything. I’m only here to protect the children, the handicapped and marriage as an institution in itself.
If you really cared about protecting children, you’d care about the children right now being raised by same sex parents, and you’d address the truth that they’re doing just fine, but would be helped by society being accepting enough of the parents relationship to grant them the same *protections* as a heterosexual couple gets. Perhaps someone here has been fooled by the idea that you’re not really here to gay bash, but as far as I’m concerned, your contempt is obvious.
As for protecting the handicapped? Does this absurd red-herring actually need commentary? This alone should be evidence of how disingenuous you really are.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
June 22nd, 2005 at 12:04 pm
On Lawn: women routinely have children. Women routinely have children outside of heterosexual marriage. Lesbians have children. Lesbians routinely have children outside of heterosexual marriage.
Marriage is not the deal maker or breaker when it comes to women having children, or have you missed this basic biological fact?
Children are also a lot smarter, perceptive, and non-judgemental than the picture you paint of them as victims and pawns. Perhaps you are too invested in an innocence that only exists through your objectification.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 22nd, 2005 at 12:12 pm
On Lawn, if you got rid of every condescending and snarky comment in your posts, I bet you could cut them down by at least half.
So if you are ready to grant same sex couples a marriage license based on their similarity to infertile married couples then a fast one has been pulled on you. You’ve just decided to give healthy individuals access to the resources designated for the handicapped.
This argument is easily dismantled: We already give “healthy individuals” access to the “resources” designated for the “handicapped” by allowing fertile (i.e. healthy) heterosexual couples to get married.
And, speaking for myself, I do not support SSM “based on [same-sex couples'] similarity to infertile married couples.” In fact, I support SSM based on the similarity between same-sex romantic relationships and opposite-sex romantic relationships. There’s a much smaller difference here than in the same-sex/infertile couples comparison: It all comes down to one chromosome.
Here’s a problem: What if two infertile women who are only friends decide one day, “Hey, let’s get married”? They’re both clearly “handicapped,” and their interest in marriage has nothing to do with sexual preference, so…
And I don’t quite understand this:
The very act seizing the right to define marriage (or make it purposefully ambiguously defined) for everyone else is oppressive. The assumption of priveleged entitlement from government at the expense of others is oppressive.
Now, to me this sounds a heck of a lot like a pro-SSM argument, and a pretty radical one at that. Defining marriage for everyone is oppressive! which is why we should open it up to everyone who wants it. The assumption of entitlement is also oppressive! which is why hetero couples shouldn’t be the only ones to benefit from it.
And this:
[W]hen sexual preference is the very core marriage it is vanity and selfishness.
Vanity and selfishness have never ever been obstacles to marriage. People have always gotten married for vain and selfish reasons. Why does it suddenly matter only when it comes to same-sex relationships? And sexual preference is sort of the crux of romantic love–if it wasn’t, then we’d fall in love with others regardless of their gender–so I don’t understand how it can possibly be considered “vanity and selfishness.”
This comment was written by Hestia.Report this comment to the moderators
June 22nd, 2005 at 12:16 pm
Besides which, the very act of marriage is itself vain and selfish! Really, if we want to eliminate vanity and selfishness from our relationships, we shouldn’t choose our own partners at all. In fact, we should marry only mean and horrible people, as a sacrifice to…something. Maybe to stop some other nicer person from marrying a jerk. I don’t know. It’s your argument, On Lawn; can you explain it?
This comment was written by Hestia.Report this comment to the moderators
June 22nd, 2005 at 12:33 pm
True, the legal system is grounded in the Constitution. You will find that the dictionary is rooted in reality.
In other words, you believe that the Constitution is not rooted in reality. Do you also advocate replacing the Constitution (and all fifty state Constitutions) with the online version of Merriam-Webster? And can you get around to explaining what your excerpt has to do with same-sex marriage?
As a potential for a vastly more limiting requirement to limiting types of sexual activity the reference to “no-fault-divorce”? made my argument stronger as previously noted.
No, it actually contradicts your argument. Flatly asserting otherwise doesn’t make it so. In fact, you might want to apply “needs more than ‘I say so’ as evidence” to pretty much every argument you’ve made.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 22nd, 2005 at 12:38 pm
Neoplatonist nonsesnse. The dictionary is rooted in whatever dicitonary authors decide it’s rooted in.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
June 22nd, 2005 at 12:41 pm
That’s because there is no harm being done.
Your ability to have strong beliefs is noted.
There’s no proof for it
The scientific body of reasoning that points to the benefits of having equal gender representation in the home is substantial. While one may wonder just what you will do to raise the bar of “proof”, I won’t even go that far. You’ve shown yourself to me to be a very off-balanced and aggressive, leaning strongly toward personal biases. One wonders what “proof” can overcome willful blindness to begin with.
That, I will note is a personal comment. Unfortunately as his assertion left nothing but his own ability to judge reality as substantiation, and that ability is entirely suspect, it is a warranted reply along with the search results for scientific research (referenced directly in at least the first five articles I cared to click on). However as such research started this thread, I don’t expect your ability to see or not see to influence me much.
Bringing in a media quote by Rosie O’Donnell is crap too.
Just another case in point at just how ‘facts’ that get in the way are disregarded.
Your ideas are too poisonous, and it’s obvious you’ve got no real respect for GLBT people.
Again, one would suspect the true height of the bar at which you place “real respect” on.
And yeah, I think your points are phony
Just another case in point at just how ‘facts’ and reason that get in the way are disregarded.
Just how representative of gay-advocacy can I put you down as being here?
If you really cared about protecting children, you’d care about the children right now being raised by same sex parents
How concerns about subjugating children’s needs under the private gender biases of the heads of household are not “really caring about protecting children” is not apparent in your remarks. To me you are simply kicking and screaming that the children-as-bait routine exposes your prejudicial attitude.
Does this absurd red-herring actually need commentary?
Even your most absurd assertions have been met with commentary. Should you feel that assertion is also absurd you should feel free to produce commentary. The “ease” with which you insinuate the composing the retort, the obviousness of it, should be an invitation for you to do so.
As of yet, no such retort has been lodged at those articles. And I’m not one to play along with parading emperors with no clothes.
–
Q,
If by this you mean that lack of marriage doesn’t preclude procreation, then I agree. However if you mean that marriage and its equal-gender-representation requirement doesn’t provide a great structure and benefit to a child “making or breaking” their own lives, then I’m afraid I cannot go that far. It is counter to biology.
Children are also a lot smarter, perceptive, and non-judgmental than the picture you paint of them as victims and pawns.
I can assure you that any “picture” painted on the intelligence and perception of children is entirely your own coloring of the issue. None was intended by my authorship of it.
Children are very bright, very very perceptive. Rosie’s child is an example I’ve put across. Luckily they have their own ability to heal from their upbringing which is good as no upbringing is perfect. However, relying on their resiliency to satisfy petty personal biases where someone claims they cannot love anyone of the opposite sex and subjects their child to be without that parent is wrong.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 22nd, 2005 at 1:12 pm
“However if you mean that marriage and its equal-gender-representation requirement doesn’t provide a great structure and benefit to a child “making or breaking”? their own lives, then I’m afraid I cannot go that far. It is counter to biology.”
Marriage is not biological… it is a social construct. I would think that given a chance to communally raise children, children exposed to the greatest amount of variance and similarity would be healthier than those raised in a nuclear and socially incestuous two-gendered “family”. Oh, wait. You’re conflating marriage with family with biology, no?
My point was that it does not take either marriage or family for a woman to procreate. So I don’t see why you are hung up on having a man around. Biologically speaking, men are almost superfluous after any given woman is impregnated.
Now, if what you really are trying to say is that in **our** specific, modern society children that are socialized to be good citizens within our specific, modern society are those that are raised in a tailor made fashion to do so, well, yeah, you’d be right. But that is neither biological or essential. You could just as easily argue that children raised in a two-gender nuclear family are far more likely to be rabid, wasteful consumers because they lack a fundamental sense of connection to both their human communities and their environmental communities.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 22nd, 2005 at 1:13 pm
Hestia,
On Lawn, if you got rid of every condescending and snarky comment in your posts, I bet you could cut them down by at least half.
You are generous. Others here consider everything I’ve written to be “snarky” and condescending ;)
We already give “healthy individuals”? access to the “resources”? designated for the “handicapped”? by allowing fertile (i.e. healthy) heterosexual couples to get married.
Well done, but one problem. Though a beneficiary the “healthy individual” is not the one to whom the resources are devoted.
I support SSM based on the similarity between same-sex romantic relationships and opposite-sex romantic relationships.
At best, however, that is a fallacy of division. Unfortunately, even though you intend it not to, it really does conflate homosexuality with a handicap. It may not be your goal, but you should be more aware of the dangers of those policies you advocate.
There’s a much smaller difference here than in the same-sex/infertile couples comparison: It all comes down to one chromosome.
I suppose it does. And why that one chromosome precludes same-sex procreation, and why homosexuals cannot love someone because of it is something to ponder. However, I doubt that a microscope will bring many answers to those questions.
They’re both clearly “handicapped,”?
Interesting commentary! I wish you had posted this on that site, there are others who would be interested in seeing it as well.
To answer I’ll note that a handicap is an inability to do something that they would naturally or commonly be able to do. That they are enable to procreate heterosexually does not make the inability to homosexually procreate a handicap because they still can’t normally procreate homosexually.
Defining marriage for everyone is oppressive!
While a good point, it derives its punch from a fallacy if the basis is my phraseology. Seizing the right to define marriage for everyone else is oppressive, and that is a select case of defining marriage. It is not an extrapolation I’ve made to jump from the specific to the general, and I do not see where you support doing such an extrapolation.
Vanity and selfishness have never ever been obstacles to marriage. People have always gotten married for vain and selfish reasons.
Vanity and selfishness are obstacles to marriage. The more vain and selfish the more likely that marriage is to fail.
What I believe you are trying to say is that vanity and selfishness are not something the government scrutinizes when people apply for marriage. This is true. Op-Ed explains why this is in this article.
You might also check out the last three paragraphs of this essay for reasoning on how gender segregation is a legal test that can be and should be applied.
Besides which, the very act of marriage is itself vain and selfish!
Life has a number of paradoxical orders to it. Often they are exploited for political rhetoric, but I digress.
One such paradox is that for you and me to achieve our fullest individual expression, we need other people. For that to be procreation (which is to me the greatest impact we will have on society) we need someone of the opposite sex. So to truly express individuality, we find we must compromise with someone else. Not coincidentally that compromise is with someone who tells us to clean our socks off the floor, or leaves the toilet seat down, etc…
Whether the benefit of such cooperation and charity (to children) is vain and selfish is left for the reader to hammer out for themselves. As for myself, I consider the benefits of cooperation and charity to be secondary to the requirements of selflessness in determining the magnanimous nature of the endeavor.
–
mythiago,
In other words, you believe that the Constitution is not rooted in reality.
How so?
Do you also advocate replacing the Constitution (and all fifty state Constitutions) with the online version of Merriam-Webster?
Oh wait, I see what is going on here. You have failed to find any constitutional basis to support such a flagrant contradiction as was pointed out previously. So now I suppose I am to endure twenty questions in hopes that I forget your error.
Look, just own up to it. If you have a point make it, if you erred just say so.
By the way, the answer to the question of replacement is “no”. Which, fortunately doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said.
And can you get around to explaining what your excerpt has to do with same-sex marriage?
Great, now for intellectual argument mythiago wants to fire off loaded questions.
Look mythiago, this whole constitutional red-herring is your own. I find it funny how I entertained it enough (because, well, it was entertaining ;) to discredit it, and now you make a whole meal out of it.
As I said before, your assertion conflicts with reality. The reconciliation of which is not up to me.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 22nd, 2005 at 1:16 pm
/random aside
The title of this thread keeps bugging me. Queer rights are not on the chopping block. There are no queer rights. As a class we are disenfranchised and do not have full citizen rights.
You can’t chop something that isn’t there!
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 22nd, 2005 at 3:14 pm
This is a link to a googling for the phrase “children need a mother and father research”
And at this point, you’ve reached the limits of my respect for Amp’s civility rules in your insulting tone, so I’m bowing out out of consideration for not trying to find ways around it and tell you what I really think of you.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
June 22nd, 2005 at 3:57 pm
Josh,
This is a link to a googling for the phrase “children need a mother and father research”?
As advertised:
so I’m bowing out out [sic]
If you asked me, (and I’m not saying you did) it looked to me as if you bowed out long ago. I was unwilling to take your statements at face value, you were offended at the insolence, and now your fingers have caught up. Only now you try to use the same spurious accusation as a way to blame me for the problems in your argument. The old proverb “shoot the messenger” comes to mind.
–
Q,
Marriage is not biological… it is a social construct.
To get down to it it is a social construct of a biological phenomenon.
I would think that given a chance to communally raise children, children exposed to the greatest amount of variance and similarity would be healthier than those raised in a nuclear and socially incestuous two-gendered “family”?.
Ah yes, the platonic society, the brave new world, Hillary Clinton’s village. I don’t see that marriage and family restrict someones access to community. Rather it enriches the ability of the child to interact with the community. Studies that show jail rates of children raised outside of marriage would confirm that idea.
You’re conflating marriage with family with biology, no?
You can tell me. A family is the product of marriage which to bring in children does require biology. Also the formation of families is a biological instinct that is unique in its scale among nature. How these two concepts exist is not coincidental. The sociology and the biology are related, but I do not feel I am conflating them.
I mean at the bottom of the scale you have asexual reproduction, giving way to sexual reproduction. You have plants and some animals that are seed (or egg) scatterers. Moving up the chain of social species we find more and more responsibility and care being devoted to young. From nests to protecting nests to developing societies that last even beyond maturation of the progeny. On top of that humans more than any other species (that I am aware of) have helpless infants. Our societies are built on the ability to pass on learning from one generation to the next as this familial social order is enacted.
In other words it is interesting how much biology influences society.
Biologically speaking, men are almost superfluous after any given woman is impregnated.
Sexually speaking that is true, but in the grander picture of biologically it is not. (again re: studies that show a father active in the home helps dramatically to reduce chances of Crime, etc…)
The essential nature of the equation is cushioned much by the ability of a child to overcome their upbringing. It is important to know just what you are charging a debt against when dealing with such fundamental social orders. I for one cannot justify such a charge. As I asked before:
Only the child’s resilience is a much harsher social account to spend against making the balm even that much more trivial in comparison.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 22nd, 2005 at 5:15 pm
Either that or maybe there is only so much bigotry he can stomach before he loses his lunch.
Says you, marriage as I’ve stated before has been a fluid thing within society, progressing with society so as not to become an antiquated and -dare I say it- repressive institution that doesn’t benefit society as a whole, but instead only a few members that have manuevered themselves into having access to benefits that aren’t finite. Link to your blog all you want, but that doesn’t make people agree with you more, in fact it just makes you look kind of goofy, being that you seem to feel you and your buddies in the anti-SSM crusade are all such authorities on these subjects.
Actually, the passing on learning has been extended family and community, which kind of screws up your whole ‘ma & pa and baby makes three’ world view of what makes children thrive.
So is it the penis or the gender-role you’re so hung up on? These studies are hardly an end to a conversation as empirical proof, in fact they would tend to show that it’s more an absence of 1 parent, versus an absence of 1 parent of a specific gender. Doesn’t really even take rocket science to figure this one out - their are plenty of great single parents out there, but they don’t benefit from a partner in the same way that a duo of parents do. This whole conversation can and does go on and on.
The only thing my husband had to overcome in dealing with his mother being a lesbian was people like you. ‘Concerned’ people like you do far more damage with your actions than I suspect most queer parents do in their preferences. At any rate, if my husband were to kindly ask you to back the hell off of seeing to his welfare as the kid of a queer, would you? Yeah, I thought not, after all, it’s not really about him and other COLAGE.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 22nd, 2005 at 9:12 pm
Look mythiago, this whole constitutional red-herring is your own.
Now the Constitution isn’t merely inferior to the dictionary; it’s a red herring?
Talking in circles may be some kind of verbal masturbation for you, but it’s not making your point.
There is no Platonic Ideal of marriage, unchanged since the dawn of time, with which same-sex marriage will irrevocably tamper.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 23rd, 2005 at 10:46 am
Hestia,
I thought your comments were fascinating, and apparently I’m not the only one. A friend who has been monitoring this debate found one exchange in particular worth of much more discussion. I believe you would be interested in joining the discussion where you were quoted.
–
Kim,
Either that or maybe there is only so much bigotry he can stomach before he loses his lunch.
I wouldn’t get too worked up about his claims. “Bigotry” appears to just be his word for “insolence” and “contempt”.
Says you
Sure I said it. When evidence points to something, I’ll say it. In this case the wealth of zoological science points to social factors as being influenced heavily by biological instinct, as presented previously.
Again, you seem to be using dismay and contrarianism where a counter-argument is expected.
as I’ve stated before has been a fluid thing
Returning to your ipse dixit? Please note that you were the one who left the discussion about marriage fluidity when you were pressed to show definition changes in marriage that were not the cultural protocols of the sociality of marriage.
Why did you leave the conversation? I don’t know, but I can speculate it has something to do with the same reason I’m so confident you can’t. I’ve been around that block enough to know that the more things change the more they stay the same, and the definition of marriage has been universal throughout historic documentation.
Actually, the passing on learning has been extended family and community
Are you saying that the family does not pass on learning any more?
kind of screws up your whole ‘ma & pa and baby makes three’ world view of what makes children thrive
Apparently you are saying that. Am I saying that the family excludes extra-familial society? I’ll leave that up to the reader to see if they can understand a basic concept that seems so elusive to Kim,
So is it the penis or the gender-role you’re so hung up on?
This is just another of those, “have you stopped beating your wife” style questions, isn’t it…
Look, I’m all for civilized and rational debate. But Kim, I’m just not seeing from you the intellectual honesty required to have such a discussion.
they would tend to show that it’s more an absence of 1 parent, versus an absence of 1 parent of a specific gender.
Actually studies show that the absence of each gender in fostering has a different impact on children. Fathers have a different impact on the IQ of children than mothers do, etc… which indicates that gender has an impact above and beyond numbers. Clicking on the search link above shows a wealth of information on the subject (or you can just google “children need a mother and father research” yourself).
The only thing my husband had to overcome in dealing with his mother being a lesbian was people like you.
Those poor souls who’s parents are addicted to drugs, child molesters, criminals, abusive or neglectful. Think that is a moral equivalence? Fine, what about Gilbert Grape? What about children who’s parents died in the war? What about children who have some medical condition and have to deal with their parents lamenting how much a drain the medical costs are on the family?
I’m personally insulted that with all the problems children face in the world you are so wrapped up in your husband’s “scars” for having a lesbian mother. If you are trying to “guilt” me into taking back what I said about the selfishness of those trying to make marriage an institution of gender segregation, you have barked up the wrong tree. No, not even that, you’ve re-enforced the believe that what you are advocating is selfishness. And no selfishness that deprives a child of a mother or father can or should be sugar coated, and lying to the children is no way to fix the problem.
–
mythiago,
the Constitution isn’t merely inferior to the dictionary
I think it is rather quaint that you continue to posit that the constitution and dictionary are conflicting. You’ve demonstrated no conflict, but you sure keep acting like there is :-D
it’s a red herring
Absolutely right! Is that all you were worried about? You can rest assured that the constitution isn’t a red-herring, it is a legal document. And probably the best document of its kind.
However, pitting the constitution against the dictionary is yet to be determined in its impact to this debate. Especially when “conflate” is not found or defined in the constitution, let alone conflicting with the dictionary.
Yet you have conflicted with the dictionary, haven’t you? Lets look at the statements again…
but it’s not making your point.
You are saying that I haven’t made a point yet?
There is no Platonic Ideal of marriage
Wow, once again you amaze me with your absolutism. Nowhere does this ideal exist?
Actually, where you are getting this “platonic ideal of marriage” from in the first place is not found at this time in your writings.
same-sex marriage will irrevocably tamper
That isn’t a marriage, it is an impersonation of marriage’s attributes. A marriage is a union of two different things, while a same-sex coupling is more like a bundling or clustering.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 23rd, 2005 at 11:11 am
On Lawn writes, “…the definition of marriage has been universal throughout historic documentation.”
This claim right here pretty much disqualifies all that you have to say on the matter. It seems that you are either horrifyingly ignorant of the facts or grossly dishonest.
The definition of marriage isn’t even been universal today. Please note that there are countries where polygamous marriage exists, that there are countries where same sex marriage exists, countries where the wife is owned by the husband. Less than 200 years ago the wife was the property of the husband in the USA. Less than 50 years ago miscegenation was illegal in much of the USA.
Simply put, there is no universal definition of marriage now and there has never at any time (never mind in historical documentation) been a universal definition of marriage.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 23rd, 2005 at 11:34 am
On Lawn: gender segregation is what we live under as women. It has nothing to do with homosexuality.
In fact, the nuclear family **is** one of the primary check points/gates of gender segregation. Especially when you add in the historical forced childbearing that the nuclear family has created for most women.
Please address this before you go on with you cock-i-many horse shit about gay men and lesbians.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 23rd, 2005 at 11:45 am
So far the only convincing argument that On Lawn has made is that he would greatly benefit from being whacked up the side of the head with a copy of “Elements of Style” (softcover version, I’m not cruel).
<slight thread drift>For one subculture’s very different concept of marriage and family, read the book, “Leaving Mother Lake : a girlhood at the edge of the world” by Yang Erche Namu and Christine Mathieu.</slight thread drift>
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
June 23rd, 2005 at 11:51 am
Jake,
This claim right here pretty much disqualifies all that you have to say on the matter.
Sure, posture your post however you would like. Just make sure you support your accusations.
I’m sure people are looking for any excuse to dismiss just about anything I’ve said. You do yourself and others a disservice when that dismissal is based on its dissagreement more than its validity.
Please note that there are countries where polygamous marriage exists
Noted. In fact in the world (at least historically) there are women with more than one husband also.
that there are countries where same sex marriage exists
Alright, you have me there. It was universally constant until (relatively speaking historically) a few milliseconds ago.
countries where the wife is owned by the husband.
And countries (at least historically) where the husband was owned by the wife. We have matriarchal and patriarchal families in history.
Now having said that, only one of those conditions was a change in the definition of marriage. It is like the old Sesame Street game, “one of these is not like the others”.
But Jake, i recognize that you have run into the territory Kim was fearful to tread. I appreciate that.
–
Q,
gender segregation is what we live under as women
And men too. Men and women have seperate bathrooms that are not equal.
Especially when you add in the historical forced childbearing that the nuclear family has created for most women.
As in the men don’t share in childbearing? I would venture that is an imposition made not by human hands.
Please address this before you go on
I’m always happy to address points that need further clarification, and I hope I have done so here. To surrender what I talk about when someone else feels something else should be more important is folly.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 23rd, 2005 at 11:58 am
Andif,
So far the only convincing argument that On Lawn has made is
I won’t commentate on my own arguments. People are free to be convinced on their own. Convincing is a function of what people value, and to watch so many people here trash concepts in order to preserve their sense of identity has been like watching a bull in a china closet.
But I will tell you what is an unconvincing argument, one that assumes I haven’t read or known something you do know. Especially when it is presented through the most impenetrably vague hand waving, and threat of violence.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 23rd, 2005 at 11:59 am
Relevant to Jake Squid’s post: a good book on the history of Western marriage is “The Knight, the Lady, and the Priest,” by Georges Duby. It shows the evolution of marriage over hundreds of years and discusses the reasons for the changes.
Isn’t a lot of the acrimony over SSM over the loaded word “marriage”? I know this was brought up earlier, but I think we need a etymological separation of church and state on this. Maybe we should just make up a whole new word for the legal arrangement between two members of the species Homo sapiens as currently understood by the word “marriage”, and that word would be globally substituted for “marriage” in all the statutes and regulations across the board - federal, state, local, what have you. Then all of the teeming hordes whose idea of marriage is based on their religion could keep that word for their religious commitment to their life partner, and everybody could go off and live their lives.
In Italy (I think), couples get married at City Hall for government recognition of their union and then again wherever they worship so the union is recognized by their religious leadership. We in the US have mixed the two by letting clergy serve a double role. That’s a huge part of the problem, but it’s fixable with a lot of work. And if you want to have a religious ceremony to celebrate your commitment to a cultural institution :), you can have it - but you also have to go through the government loop to get the tax deductions and so on.
I realize I’m discriminating against polygamists and that segment of the population who really love their pets, but I decided that’s where I wanted to draw the line. C’mon, let’s hear it for “mergerage”!
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
June 23rd, 2005 at 12:01 pm
“And men too. Men and women have seperate bathrooms that are not equal.”
This if fucking rich. Both men and women have access to public restrooms that afford both sex the ability to urinate and deficate in public if necessary. How is this not equal?
… and surely you don’t think that men are getting the same short end of the social stick that women are? If so, then bugger off.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 23rd, 2005 at 12:01 pm
OnLawn: “Now having said that, only one of those conditions was a change in the definition of marriage.”
Perhaps you can grace us with the definition of marriage?
I like the way that you skip around the fact that there is not now, nor has there ever been, a “universal definition” of marriage. You admit that all of these different forms of marriage exist, both now and in the past, and then try to wiggle out of it by saying the bit that I quoted.
To claim that the change from wife as property to wife as equal is not a change in the definition of marriage is a classic one for anti-marriage equality people. It seems that the anti-marriage equality people’s definition of marriage is “One man & one woman, except when there is one man and many women, formally announcing their marriage. There is nothing else that defines marriage.” To this, you have added, “except for when there is one woman and many men.” And we all, even you, know that that is just not true.
So let’s have it. Tell us, oh wise one, what is the definition of marriage?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 23rd, 2005 at 12:37 pm
QGrrl, we have equal access to the facilities (now - ask Barbara Mikulski sometime about the Senate restrooms), but the facilities themselves are usually not equal. On Lawn’s use of it in the context of the discussion on this thread was totally irrelevant, but I have to admit that I am frequently frustrated by the whole women-have-two-stalls-but-guys-have-two-stalls-and-5-urinals thing in public areas.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
June 23rd, 2005 at 12:40 pm
Lee,
I think we need a etymological separation of church and state on this.
I don’t find the definition of marriage to be the intellectual property of religions to define or re-define. As Op-Ed mentioned in his essay, The 800lb Gorilla the whole religion thing is irrelevant.
In fact when you think of it there is no one religion that we draw our definition of marriage from. Likewise there is no one culture we derive our definition of marriage from. Every atheist state no matter how severe their enforced atheism performed and recognized marriage.
C’mon, let’s hear it for “mergerage”?!
I have to say, you do have style :)
How is this not equal?
In that way it is equal, and I’m glad you put it that way. It was the discussion I was hoping to develop. Are bathrooms segregated? Sure. Do women’s bathrooms cost more to make and take up more space? Sure. But the equality is measured accurately when measured by purpose.
So it is with marriage vs. same-sex couplings.
Perhaps you can grace us with the definition of marriage?
Actually, that is easier than you might think. I’ll just choose m-w.com again…
Note: they have a separate usage for so-called ’same sex marriage’.
I like the way that you skip around the fact
I wouldn’t call it skipping. Now, skipping around dodging the need to substantiate your “fact” is what I’ve been seeing from the beginning here.
You were the first to try to lay down actual changes. Unfortunately only one was a change in definition. Thats not my fault, I just pointed it out.
To claim that the change from wife as property to wife as equal is not a change in the definition of marriage is a classic one for anti-marriage equality people.
Thank you, it is a very good argument indeed!
It seems that the anti-marriage equality people’s definition of marriage is “One man & one woman, except when there is one man and many women, formally announcing their marriage.
Even this sarcastic definition doesn’t address “who is property to whom” as a definition, does it. To date I’ve not seen a definition that required one person to be the property of another.
Polygamy is not a change in the definition of marriage, however. Polygamy means literally “many marriages”. The existence of many wives is a result of there being more than one marriage.
I’m not aware of a case in history where one man and two women (for example) were all married to each other. Perhaps you can provide one. Certainly if it happened it was short-lasted, denoting yet again that re-defining marriage doesn’t work.
I predicted that no change in the definition of marriage would be found, just alterations in the protocols and sociality of marriage. Each marriage may have had a different contract, a different devision of labor, but what a marriage is has not changed. Just like what a franchise is hasn’t changed even though everything from movie-sequels to McDonalds (and more) are called franchises.
So, Jake (and anyone else out there who would care to try), if you have real differences in the definition of marriage then by all means present it. But don’t expect me to fall for your inability to know the difference between protocol and definition.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 23rd, 2005 at 12:46 pm
Oh, one more note.
Marriage is equal and I am a marriage equalist. I am also for marriage remaining an institution of gender integration. I find the idea that marriage is better off adopting gender segretation is contradictory to the equity that marriage is.
Do you think marriage is discriminatory in its requirement for equal gender representation? I’d like to hear about it after you read the article addressing that subject…
Is Marriage Discriminatory?
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 23rd, 2005 at 12:54 pm
But I will tell you what is an unconvincing argument, one that assumes I haven’t read or known something you do know. Especially when it is presented through the most impenetrably vague hand waving, and threat of violence.
Thanks for the laugh.
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
June 23rd, 2005 at 1:09 pm
Thanks for the laugh.
No, thank you. I can’t take credit for that one :)
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 23rd, 2005 at 1:21 pm
Well, On Lawn, I am thankful that your definition of marriage is not, by any means, universal. But I can see how your various arguments are convincing to one who holds your extremely limited view of a marriage is.
Thanks for giving your definition, though. It matches exactly my “sarcastic” explanation of the anti-marriage equality definition of marriage (as you so clearly spell out in your definition of polygamous). Given that our definitions of marriage are so different, there is no common ground for debate between us. I believe that your definition is wrong and you believe that my definition is wrong. Thankfully, changes to marriage continue to move in the right direction despite people like you.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 23rd, 2005 at 1:22 pm
Whoops.
“…of what a marriage is.”
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 23rd, 2005 at 1:37 pm
Thanks for giving your definition, though. It matches exactly my “sarcastic”? explanation of the anti-marriage equality definition of marriage
Heh, I was about to suggest that similarity meant Merriam and Webster were “anti-marriage equilists”. But it was the difference that counted, so that is what I addressed.
Thankfully, changes to marriage continue to move in the right direction despite people like you.
I am thankful for that every day as I see marriage amendments passing, and judges upholding marriage definitions. I hope I am not hindering that progress. I appreciate you looking into a different point of view.
Perhaps progress has been made in understanding. Or perhaps all I’ve done is set someone else on the aloof plane of ridicule, no longer willing to let what they believe to be fact to be scrutinized by others. I hope it is the former.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 23rd, 2005 at 1:42 pm
To the tune of “One Last Kiss” from Bye-Bye Birdie
Oh, one last snark
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Just give me one last snark
I need to feel so smart
Oh, oh, oh, oh
Just give me one last snark
Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2005 at 6:50 am
On Lawn, you clearly are ignoring the fact that our modern legal definition of marriage (one man, one woman) is based at least in part on ancient Roman law, reinforced by Christian religious leaders back when the church had a great deal of power and influence on the state. The Romans recognized homosexual relationships but didn’t grant them automatic inheritance rights because their whole orientation for property rights was towards the family, the continuance of family lines that (in the case of the aristocracy, anyway) descended from the gods (see, religion again).
Therefore, if we separate the religious aspect of marriage from the legal aspect of marriage, which can be done the most simply linguistically, there is no logical reason why SSM would not be allowed the same property rights and personal rights as ISM.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2005 at 8:31 am
On Lawn, you clearly are ignoring the fact
Whoa there. Lets not be hasty.
I get this kind of accusation a lot, and here’s the typical reason why. Someone believes a fact (lets call it fact “A”) and then concludes that statement “C” is also a fact. When I don’t share that conclusion, usually because of points B, D, and E, they accuse me of ignoring fact “A”.
our modern legal definition of marriage (one man, one woman) is based at least in part on ancient Roman law
Thats a tough call. The definition of marriage dates back far before the Romans. The Romans based much of their religion on the Greeks. In an interview with NPR, Daniel Mendelsohn who is a lecturer on the classics at Princeton University discussed Greco-Roman marital relations and same-sex couplings…
Which mirrors pretty closely what you said, only it points to secular (for the time) reasoning and points to it existing before any catholic influence.
What this really shows is that even extremely homosexual societies recognized marriage. Even societies where homosexuality was endorsed by the major religions of the day. If I were to conclude anything, it would be that the notion that marriage needs to be a referendum on homosexuality is bunk.
But the Greeks probably got their notions of religion (etc…) from the Phoenicians who used to have groves of orgy between any sexuality. Priests and Priestesses were essentially religious prostitution. But thats about as far as I can go back personally, yet the Shibaku stone (the oldest known written record that I am aware of) describes a marriage between one man and one woman. This shows that Egypt somehow paralleled the definition of marriage as the Phoenicians. Similarly civilizations far to the east (even Jakarta which practiced lesbianism as a religious rite) and west (as in Native Americans) practiced marriage.
I believe you realize this when you qualified your remark with “our modern legal definition of marriage (one man, one woman) is based at least in part“. But all that was mentioned previously.
if we separate the religious aspect of marriage from the legal aspect of marriage
This was dealt with previously also. Kim had pointed out:
To which I remarked:
Later I specified the fallacy:
If I were to name the fallacy it would be “guilt by association“.
You’ll note that in my framing of the culture war present, that it makes no appeal to religion whatsoever:
And so finally, with all that I’ve pointed out and seen you can understand that I come to this conclusion not by excluding points but by taking them in with a much broader view than the greco-roman influence on western society (even though such a narrow view still doesn’t support the “guilt by association” castigation that makes the re-definition of marriage so popular):
There are many, many concepts that we accept secularly that have a religions base. Probably no more important ideal has influenced the peculiarness of our society more than the truism that comes from the Declaration of Independence:
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2005 at 11:16 am
Onlawn, you really do like to pontificate and make noises around the idea that you think are wonderfully clever. However, in your attempt yet again to pretend as if you debunked my argument, you selected one portion of it, failing to address the fact that religion was not the basis, but part of the larger idea of marriage being ultimately fluid in nature. The implication was that I accused you of having only religious motivations, when believe me fella, I think your issues go far deeper than that.
Beyond that, nearly every society, dating all the way back to the code of hammurabi (approx 1780’s BCE) have marriage laws. Possibly even, earlier societies, but the CoH is a definitive piece of evidence. You’ve asked me again and again to get into this whole conversation (clearly you’re of the mind that you’ve got some wonderful historical perspective on marriages that justifies lack of progress and discrimination in modern society), and yet it still seems like a wild tail chase for you to have yet another opportunity to spout ideas that are in no way fluid, but instead this whole system of discrimination that you’ve created this vast argument of justifications that only works in the minds of bigots and homphobes. Am I calling you out? You betcha, I think you’re an ass, a bigot, a liar and a danger to social progress attempting to masquerade as an academic. You also seem like a bit of a one-trick pony when it comes to issues, and have created as I said a rather well scripted, yet still complete bullshit rationale for your bigotry.
And finally - while you’d like to think that I’m pulling my own thoughts on children of gays straight from one source (my husband), I did happen to mention COLAGE, which you had zero inkling about. This went on to show me how incredibly uneducated you are on the subject outside of your own justifications. COLAGE is an acronym of Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere and is a nationwide organization created for and by children of lesbians and gays everywhere, with the goal of spreading the truth about their own lives and upbringings. My husband is a member of COLAGE.
Like Josh, I’ll go ahead and bow out of this debate at this point, since really all I want to do at this point is slip further into a complete lack of civility and that doesn’t do anyone any good.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
but part of the larger idea of marriage being ultimately fluid in nature.
Back to your ipse dixit. I was impressed that Jake tried to substantiate that comment where you have not. I note that you still have not, and seem to blame me for your inabilities once again. Jake at least acknowledged it was “consistent” among a few side-ways jabs of his own.
The implication was that I accused you of having only religious motivations
How can I have “only” religious motivations when the vast majority of reasoning I present here and elsewhere is secular? Is this secular reasoning just a ruse? Is that what you are accusing me through implication? I thought I detected intellectual dishonesty, and you seem to have cooperated it.
clearly you’re of the mind that you’ve got some wonderful historical perspective on marriages that justifies lack of progress and discrimination in modern society
I’ll leave it up to others to describe my historical perspective as wonderful :)
However, as pointed out there is nothing progressive about including gender segregationist. You think that is progress? I’ll leave it up to the reader to determine your real motivations behind adopting gender segregation.
Beyond that, nearly every society, dating all the way back to the code of hammurabi (approx 1780’s BCE) have marriage laws.
Exactly my point. And that law centered around the same definition I posted from our contemporary dictionary.
but instead this whole system of discrimination that you’ve created
No, the discrimination is not created by myself, again you mis-attribute. I’m not even endorsing gender discrimination. As pointed out previously marriage in its requirement for equal gender participation discriminates equally against no gender whatsoever. I’ve not seen you answer the points in that article, not here nor there. Instead I am subjected to all sorts of invective and slander:
I think you’re an ass, a bigot, a liar and a danger to social progress attempting to masquerade as an academic. You also seem like a bit of a one-trick pony when it comes to issues, and have created as I said a rather well scripted, yet still complete bullshit rationale for your bigotry.
So your inability to prevail is just due to “scripting”. Your ideas are left unsubstantiated, your arguments abandoned long ago, only invective and ridicule remain. Reading your tirade I continue to see attempts to condemn me for insubordinance to your personal views of “progress”. Well, someone has to stand up to that, might as well be me.
Another person pointed out what appears to be your script a few years back. I have it posted on this article.
you’d like to think that I’m pulling my own thoughts on children of gays straight from one source (my husband)
I never said anything of the kind. But as you’ve drug your husband in on particular matters, I’ve addressed the insensitivity and selfishness of his comments, as well as their inaccuracy.
And for you and Josh, incivility is your last resort then you are better off refraining.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2005 at 1:02 pm
However, as pointed out there is nothing progressive about including gender segregationist.
It’s dishonest (and that is charitable) to make the wild claim that SSM is in any way “gender segregationist.” That doesn’t even make sense.
And that law centered around the same definition I posted from our contemporary dictionary.
It is both convenient for you and dishonest of you to cherry pick one part of the definition of marriage as being the only definition of marriage and to exclude all other parts of the definition as being meaningless or unimportant.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2005 at 1:17 pm
The nature of marriage and its structure is not an ahistorical universal constant. Take a look at this Wikipedia article on Family, particularly the section on Kinship Terminology. My understanding is that Louis Henry Morgan’s work found that not only did different cultures have different kinship structures in the present, but that the language used to describe kinship didn’t quite match the real kinship structures — and on further research, this was evidence of those structures evolving over time.
The notions of “family” and “marriage” in current usage no longer fit the actual families and adult relations that we actually have. This calls for changes in law (and language) to better fit our lived reality. Reactionaries oppose this, and cling to ahistorical fantasies about unchanging family structures that never actually existed in their imaginary ideal form, and weren’t even the ideal form a few centuries ago.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
Jake, glad to see you back.
It’s dishonest (and that is charitable) to make the wild claim that SSM is in any way “gender segregationist.”? That doesn’t even make sense.
Are pulling a “mythiago” on me here and ambivolently stating a word is not what it is defined as? You have either man-man or woman-woman as possible same-sex couplings, which to me is a segregation of gender. Hence the notion is gender segregationist.
Other than it not making sense to you, do you have a specific reason that it isn’t segregationist?
It is both convenient for you and dishonest of you to cherry pick one part of the definition of marriage
What part of the definition did I miss?
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
…do you have a specific reason that it isn’t segregationist?
Ummmm, because marrying somebody of the same gender is not a requirement. Allowing SSM means that a person can marry someone of either gender. To be gender segragation, you would need to prohibit OSM. That would keep men and women a lot more segregated than they are now. I’m pretty sure that you’re not a moron, so you’re probably being dishonest when you make this claim.
What part of the definition did I miss?
The parts that determine how many women a man may marry, whether the wife and her property becomes the property of the husband or not, whether consummation is required or not, whether children are required or not, just to name a few.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
Take a look at this Wikipedia article
Yeah, I keep up on the Wikipedia pretty closely. I’ve even edited a few pages myself. Its not a perfect system, but its pretty good.
this was evidence of those structures evolving over time
Not a point of argument from me. Some cultures have the first son as the only one that gets inheritance, this idea was continued on in the feudal system as the crown always went to the eldest. These days inheritance gives more deference to the property owner as our culture values property ownership as a basic human right.
Terminologies change often to fit cultural distinctions in protocol like the above example of inheritance. In marriage there were historically “concubines” and “wives”. Wives handmaids were considered property to gain children with. But thats where it is important to make a distinction between a definition and the culture/protocol’s developed to integrate with that tradition. We treat deer and trees differently than many cultures. Some cultures even worship cows. But that doesn’t change the defninition.
The fact that the definition of marriage as a man-woman institution, describing the culmination of inter-gender capacity and relations (as far as that culture believed) is uniform. That is historic, not ahistoric.
The notions of “family”? and “marriage”? in current usage no longer fit the actual families and adult relations that we actually have.
Howso?
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
because marrying somebody of the same gender is not a requirement
You said, “It’s dishonest (and that is charitable) to make the wild claim that SSM is in any way ‘gender segregationist.’” Had you said “marriage” is not gender segregationist you would be correct and had no argument from me. But you didn’t, you said “SSM” is not segregationist and have tried to change the tables on me mistream. That would be tantamount to a shell game and I don’t appreciate it.
To be gender segregation, you would need to prohibit OSM.
For marriage in general that may be true. However I wasn’t the one to replace the shell of “SSM” and marriage in that conversation, you did.
Here’s how I put it:
Are you really arguing that conflating same-sex co-habitation with marriage doesn’t include gender segregationist in an institution that historically is exclusively gender integrationist? Because that is the logically contrary opinion to what I said.
As you are probably not a moron, I can only conclude that this shell game of “SSM” and marriage in trying to dispute that comment is your own dishonesty.
I also put it this way in comment #155:
To date I haven’t seen you address the points in that article either, not here nor there.
The parts that determine how many women a man may marry
This wasn’t missed at all. I addressed it in #148 and again in Comment #154 where I wrote:
That is clearly a protocol of how many marriages someone is allowed, not a change in definition.
whether the wife and her property becomes the property of the husband or not
That was also addressed in comment #148, and again in #154 where I said:
Ahhh, as relevant now as ever. Which probably indicates you are repeating yourself and ignoring what I’m saying rather than the opposite as you conjecture.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
And so you repeat that the only important aspect of the definition of marriage is “1man1woman.” Everything else is just a “protocol” surrounding marriage. But you couch it in such eloquent pseudo-academic terms you hope it will be missed. Nice try. So, a marriage in which the wife is purchased and becomes property of the husband is not substantially different than the accepted form of marriage in the US today? They are both very much the same, and SSM is very much different? That speaks volumes.
Shell game, indeed. SSM falls under the umbrella of marriage, just as OSM does. Shift, shift, shift the conversation away from your wild claims. You excel at that. What you don’t appreciate is that, for most people, 1man1woman does not define or make a marriage. At best, it can be claimed that is a large part of what a marriage is (and the success of that claim depends entirely on one’s beliefs, not on objective reality).
You can blindly claim that the only definition of marriage is 1man1woman because mirriam-webster says so until the cows come home. The fact is that there are dictionaries that acknowledge that marriage can be other than 1man1woman. The fact is that marriage is not defined by any given dictionary, but by the law. Marriage is a legal term. Get it? Marriage is a legal term & laws change.
But go ahead, obfuscate on. Try to switch the focus of the debate.
No matter what your definition of marriage is, it isn’t universal. Constitutionally speaking, I don’t believe you have a leg to stand on - unless you get an ammendment through.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
The fact that the definition of marriage as a man-woman institution, describing the culmination of inter-gender capacity and relations (as far as that culture believed) is uniform. That is historic, not ahistoric.
The point is, marriages have not always been between one man and one woman. Marriage has taken other forms.
The notions of “family”? and “marriage”? in current usage no longer fit the actual families and adult relations that we actually have.
Howso?
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.If you look at the actual domestic arrangements people have, you’ll find same sex couples in committed, permanent relationships, raising children together. You’ll also find a lot of other family structures. But the only legal form of marriage in most of the US is between one woman and one man — and that makes for enormous practical difficulties for people in families with different structures.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
Out of curiosity, On Lawn, what is your position on an institution (let’s call it “civil union”) that confers all the rights and privileges of marriage on same-sex couples?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2005 at 3:41 pm
Jake,
And so you repeat that the only important aspect of the definition of marriage is “1man1woman.”?
Hmm, why is it the “only importanta aspect”? Its by far the most important, but I don’t see where from my writings you think it being described as the “only” important aspect. Me thinks you are moving into the straw with this one.
Nice try.
I don’t think you have much standing to compliment me until you are a little more honest about this discussion.
a marriage in which the wife is purchased and becomes property of the husband is not substantially different
Hmm, husband and wife. Check. Come on Jake, just how blind can you be? You are substantiating the very thing you are arguing against.
I can’t make your arguments for you Jake. And I am not going to pretend you have one until you do. You are going to have to come up with something that is a definition change sooner or later. Not a protocol change, not a change in the contract, a real bonafide historic change in definition.
Shell game, indeed. SSM falls under the umbrella of marriage
Lets look at the replay:
Yep, a shell game. Need the replay again?
Shift, shift, shift the conversation away from your wild claims.
Actually it was you who claimed that same-sex marriage was not in any way gender segregationist. No amounting of shifting will reconsile that direct contradiction. Nor *sigh* have you addressed the points on that article yet. Am I really supposed to take such blustering and spurious accusation as credible argument?
Apparently so. But as I said, I cannot.
You can blindly claim that the only definition of marriage is 1man1woman because mirriam-webster says so until the cows come home.
Apparently I can, because you have not found a definition of marriage that says otherwise. Perhaps it is time for you to realise that “blindness” is not what I’m suffering from, and perhaps the problem lies with yourself. Kim suggested I’m just too good at scripting, thats why she was having problems.
But don’t think its lost on me that you are so aggrivated at what the dictionary says, though you tried to pawn it off as a myth.
The fact is that marriage is not defined by any given dictionary
Wait, you just said I quoted the definition given by a dictionary. Now you say that marriage is not defined by any dictionary?
Why looking at your argument you even said mariage was defined in many dictionaries.
Jake, take a long breath. Relax. Try flying a kite or something. You are conflicting yourself far to much to take seriously. That you springboard from these fatuous claims to make asenin acusations about myself is laughable.
Marriage is a legal term.
Alright, you are pulling a “mythiago”. When he tried to say that a bringing down of walls and putting things under the same term wasn’t a conflation, he flew off the handle about the constitution over-riding the dictionary. Never did he show where the constitution defined “conflation” let alone conflicted.
And now you are doing the same thing. You are trying to say that the law and dictionary conflict. Fine, just show us how.
I’m finding that without any evidence to support your claim you are getting wackier than ever.
–
Brian,
The point is, marriages have not always been between one man and one woman. Marriage has taken other forms.
Such as?
If you look at the actual domestic arrangements people have, you’ll find same sex couples in committed, permanent relationships, raising children together.
The Roush argument. You seem like a sharp fellow, you would perhaps enjoy my commentary on that here. I’d appreciate your comments.
Jake back to you,
what is your position on an institution (let’s call it “civil union”?) that confers all the rights and privileges of marriage on same-sex couples?
Two things actually. I used to be all for them until I read this and this.
Now I believe that it has two problems to overcome
1) Romance is not something the state should regulate or even acknowledge.
2) It needs to independantly reference that reason (i.e. not be a verbal end-around of the DOMA legislation).
Reciprocal Beneficiaries seems to address both. I could go for that.
BTW, much better tone on the second post. Much appreciated. You’ll find that questions will give you better understanding (and expose flaws in my argument) than trying to re-shape what I already said to suit your purposes.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2005 at 7:45 pm
Err, are you familiar with the differences between an thing and a concept? Yeah….
As for my having ‘problems’, not so much. People have obliged your desire for more banter with regards to how marriage is fluid, but regardless of that you remain unconvinced - I think it’s pretty obvious you’re not here to do anything other than attempt to refine your script. Why should I, one who obviously dislikes what I know of you, and abhors your policies help you do that? It doesn’t matter who takes up the torch in debating with you, you’ll wiggle around any genuine acknowledgement of points that have destroyed your propoganda and damn near fall over yourself as you attempt to pat yourself on the back for a job well done.
Debate with me over semantics you implore, debate with me over the historical definition of marriage and let me define what is protocol and fluid, and what is constant within the contract. As Jake stated though, it all comes down to opinions, and you’re pretty sure that you and merriam webster have it all shored up, so refuse to acknowledge the truth to the fact that marriage is a term that defines a union, and the individual culture/society is what defines the nature of the union.
When one hears the term ‘a marriage of ideas’, must there be a female idea and a male idea? Noooooo, the gist of the message is that it is a union. Interesting that to you man and woman, as you put it, is the most important part of marriage. Not respect, not love…just an inny and an outty.
Ahh, also, you again attempted to play it like I’m accusing you of religious arguments alone, when I haven’t once simplified it down to religion. It’s just your tendency to cherry pick sentences a part to get into a semantic nitty gritty argument, because clearly logic and general correctness is not going to win it for you.
And finally, you ignored COLAGE again, and focused on my mentionining my husband, who is the son of a lesbian married to another lesbian residing in MA, subsequently part of COLAGE. I know you’d like to pretend that all the children are messed up and screwed for life, but the fact is, you aren’t even aware of their freaking organizations, let alone how they are doing as the offspring of gay parents. Your voice of concern is so fraudulent it’s laughable.
So yes, do go ahead and pull up studies on Denmark, single parenting and how kids need gender roles, and go right ahead with your ignoring any realities.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2005 at 9:12 pm
Okay, simple. Go back to Louis Henry Morgan, and the “Hawaiian” kinship structure — in which all children of a given generation were regarded as the children of all the parents of the previous generation. No nuclear families. Not 1man1woman.
I don’t see why it should matter how a child was conceived, or whether the adults that care for a child were its biological parents. And families don’t always involve children, as has been pointed out dozens of times in this thread already.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
June 25th, 2005 at 11:57 am
JakeSquid: You can blindly claim that the only definition of marriage is 1man1woman because mirriam-webster says so until the cows come home.
Any dictionary edited after 2000, if it is honest and non-political, must include a definition of marriage that does not tie it down to “one man, one woman”. No lexicographer worthy of the name would refuse to include a valid definition of a word simply because some religionists object to the fact of it.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
June 25th, 2005 at 2:20 pm
On Lawn, work on the coherency. You stated that marriage is man/woman because the dictionary says so, and then posted a definition that says nothing of the sort.
As Jesurgislac correctly points out, dictionaries are not proscriptive. Since some countries and at least one U.S. state permit same-sex marriage, a dictionary definiton that ‘marriage is one man and woman woman’, full stop, would be factually incorrect.
You are trying to say that the law and dictionary conflict. Fine, just show us how.
“Us”? Is this like the royal We?
Please explain how the dictionary ‘conflicts.’ Then if you really need Equal Protection 101, I can give you the legal argument. I’m sure it won’t convince you, but who knows, somebody else in the home audience might find it informative.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2005 at 8:09 am
Kim -
Your finding of bigotry and homophobia behind every opposition to same-sex marriage is easily debunked by pointing to any of the vast number of homosexual commentators who oppose same-sex marriage. As far as deflecting the value of responsible procreation by pointing to your husband, that cuts both ways. What improvement would you hope to find in him had his mother same-sex married?
Brian -
I suppose OnLawn should have asked you to point to a real kinship model, not a discredited 19th century interpretation of one. Hawaiian kinship was based on the extended family, and marriage was indeed practiced. While Hawaiians used the same word for father and uncle, for example, they did not treat them both the same. Morgan’s and your error does demonstrate the confusion caused by using the same word to describe two different types of relationships, however.
Jesurgislac -
Any dictionary edited after 2000…
Merely supports the notion that same-sex marriage is both a recent phenomenon and a redefinition of the term marriage, which is On Lawn’s point.
mythago -
You stated that marriage is man/woman because the dictionary says so…
That is not what On Lawn said and you either know that and are being dishonest, or you simply don’t have the reasoning capacity to be in this debate. In response to the illogic that because some treatments of marriage have changed that there is nothing constant about marriage, On Lawn pointed to a dictionary definition that has remained constant. Saying marriage itself can be destroyed and replaced with something else simply because some treatment of it has changed is like saying you can be shot and replaced in your everyday life simply because you have changed underwear.
“Us”?? Is this like the royal We?
“Us” would refer to anyone in the readership of this thread since so far, nobody, including yourself, has risen to the challenge of showing how the law and the dictionary conflict.
Then if you really need Equal Protection 101, I can give you the legal argument.
Feel free to make your case, but the “Equal Protection” claim is easily debunked by looking at the situation in Oregon where SSM advocates are fighting viciously to exclude the vast majority of same-sex households raising children from their version of same-sex marriage.
This comment was written by op-ed.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2005 at 9:58 am
op-ed: Merely supports the notion that same-sex marriage is both a recent phenomenon and a redefinition of the term marriage, which is On Lawn’s point.
No. On Lawn called upon the dictionary to support their claim, and even insisted that they would “defer to the dictionary”. Which means that On Lawn must accept that marriage, as a word, includes same-sex marriage - that’s what the dictionary says.
Now, On Lawn can, if they like, retract that comment and declare that they will not defer to the dictionary. But so long as On Lawn is deferring to the dictionary for the definition of marriage, they have to accept that marriage can and does include same-sex and well as mixed-sex couples.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2005 at 10:20 am
Kim,
People have obliged your desire for more banter with regards to how marriage is fluid
Hmm, perhaps that is your problem. I asked for examples where marriage definition changed so that you could adequately support your claim that marriage definition is fluid.
You seem to think that meant “banter” as if there is no reality just talk. Indeed that is the perspective one must come from to justify your views on this matter.
In fact, you tried to bow-out previously. Supposedly that was because you were so emotionally invested in the topic you couldn’t stand watching it get pummeled as the feminist and gender segregationist non-sense that it is. You tried to cajole me to thinking another way, and continue to. But you offer no evidence, no reality, and no sense of reason behind your position.
In short, you find reality to be in contempt of your high and mighty prejudice.
You probably put it best:
As Jake stated though, it all comes down to opinions
And you consider your opinion to be of more importance than what people have constantly over history identified as reality. Its selfishness, and you can no more persuade me with selfishness as you could demand everyone recognize you as the center of the universe.
What a selfish feminist you have turned out to be (though I’m being redundant when I say that).
According to you I am only getting more powerful as you argue with me (mwhahahaha!), and my thoughts are poison! Whatever kind of Hannibal Lecter type personality hiding under your bed keeps you awake at night, it seems you’ve decided to paint me as that monster.
Sorry, its probably a deep seeded psychological issue that I shouldn’t make light of, yet I find it quite funny to hear you villanize me that way.
–
Jesurgislac,
Any dictionary edited after 2000, if it is honest and non-political, must include a definition of marriage that does not tie it down to “one man, one woman”?.
This was already addressed where I first pointed out the definition. The M-W dictionary referenced does indeed carry a usage for same-sex marriage, as a marriage between people of the same sex. Some dictionaries will even qualify it as a colloquialism. But no dictionary that I’m aware of and no lexographer worth his salt will try say a marriage is just a relationship between two people. The “man-woman” definition is specifically there because is a unique usage for a unique institution.
Besides, someone pointed out cleverly that what same-sex couples are doing we would better call it “mergerage”, and they don’t see marriage as any different. Well, as the polls close we see that the general experience of the populace finds otherwise. It isn’t mergerage that I support, its marriage. (see: If You Really Knew What Marriage Was (part 2): What is Marriage More?)
–
mythiago,
dictionaries are not proscriptive.
That dictionaries describe words and their common usages, and will adapt to language does not give you the license to directly conflict with the dictionary (as you did over the word “conflate”). Perhaps you were being proscriptive when you suggested that conflate really means its opposite?
Don’t feel so bad, you are in good company here on Alas. An echo-chamber of ignorance I’ve not seen its equal. Not even LGF or Kos can lay claim to such flagrant abuse of language as here.
For not only did you directly contradict standard usage of a word, but so did Jake when he suggested that SSM was not segregationist.
Y’all have been rolling in mud so much here that you simply make mud the standard.
You can keep trying to deflect with as many accusations as you wish. But I can’t say it will help your position any.
–
Brian,
I apologize for saving you for last. The accusatorial “banter” I have to wade through on this site for good discussion like yours is what makes it worth it.
I talked to my Hawaiian friends about your comment.
First, the wikipedia is resplendent with examples of pseudo-intellect passed off as credible with cool NPOV reciting. For instance they still have Saints Serge and Baccius up as an example of same-sex marriage because Boswell said they are. Only its always been known that their ceremony wasn’t a marriage at all, it was a sort of blood-brother ceremony called the Adelphopoiesis.
This appears to be such an example. They both said (as one put more succinctly) you knew who your parents were. The concept that was probably being described was the more common tribal concept of “elders”.
A more direct commentary on Morgan can be found here.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2005 at 10:20 am
I have yet to see an argument that is not based in one of those things. The use of ‘for the children’ is a red herring. Marriage in the case of the US is a legalized union that does not require children. In the attempt to tangent marriage into more than what it is, SSM opponents are being extremely dishonest about the debate in its entirity.
I understand you want to seem like your views are purely academic, not based in any less noble intentions, but I’m sorry, you and your fellow bloggers on the Opine Editorials have yet to show this, and in fact leave blatant evidence to the contrary throughout your editorials. I can imagine being pointed out as a bigot (moreso than a homophobe) causes you pain and anger, but I have no solution to offer you other than to leave the bigotry behind. Your (or On Lawns in this case) hurt feelings don’t make this quacker any less of a duck.
As for what would have helped my husband as an adolescent, I’d have to say pretty firmly less bigotry. He suffered bigotry in Oklahoma because he grew up Jewish, and afterwards when his mother and father divorced and mother moved to MA for college, he dealt with people calling him a ‘fag’ and picking on him because his mother was a lesbian. My husband definitely feels also that his homelife due to having a single parent household would have been less stressful for his mom, him and his brother had her now wife come along earlier and become a part of their life at that point.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2005 at 10:38 am
Yes folks, the Basement Variety(tm) school of debate.
1) Generally acknowledge the opposing argument. Don’t get into specifics, be as vague as possible, as this gives you room for the following steps.
2) Accuse*.
3) Accuse*.
4) Accuse*.
_______________
This comment was written by On Lawn.* The more incindiary the accusations the better, but once again try not to specifically address with points such as evidence or logic as they can be easily debunked.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2005 at 10:40 am
Look, On Lawn, you’ve got google too. You know exactly what I’m saying and your attempt to drag the conversation into a semantic argument about the different marital structures throughout history and spanning different cultures is nothing more than an attempt to railroad the conversation to some destination that is irrelevant to the SSM debate.
I’ve taken the time to educate myself on these different historical perspectives and cultural shifts, and I expect you have done the same, so what you’re really doing is more of an attempt to bully the argument. I refuse to play that game, and accept that this will mean you tantruming and stomping your foot that I don’t get it and must be ignorant. Whatever.
As for what I’ve tried to do, really I think you’re missing the ball on that one. I’ve just been a voice consistently pointing out your bigotry and dishonest debate tactics. I don’t particularly see any reason to obfuscate the truth behind some faux academics in a structure that you find comfy, and instead prefer to point at the problem when I see it. That problem, OL, is bigots like you.
This is really rich coming from someone who uses Merriam Webster as their definitive historical source. Pfft.
Nice ad hominem with regards to the feminist angle though. Did you chuckle to yourself when you typed that?
According to you I am only getting more powerful as you argue with me (mwhahahaha!), and my thoughts are poison! Whatever kind of Hannibal Lecter type personality hiding under your bed keeps you awake at night, it seems you’ve decided to paint me as that monster.
Sorry, its probably a deep seeded psychological issue that I shouldn’t make light of, yet I find it quite funny to hear you villanize me that way.
Actually I think that most would be getting more ‘powerful’ (in regards to their arguments), but somehow that particular incorporation trick seems to be missing you, which is a humorous blessing through this thread. You’re so invested in your own ideals of discrimination that your script is pretty darn rigid.
Where you took a turn towards being a bogey man and me losing sleep over monsters - well, not sure on that one. Probably just that immense ego of yours yet again misconstruing what is said into what you want said. Either that or you hit your head when patting yourself on the back for last post and are hallucinating things said that weren’t.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2005 at 10:45 am
On Lawn, no thanks for the misquote. You are deliberately twisting what I said in my first post on this thread.
On Lawn: Besides, someone pointed out cleverly that what same-sex couples are doing we would better call it “mergerage”?, and they don’t see marriage as any different
Lee: Maybe we should just make up a whole new word for the legal arrangement between two members of the species Homo sapiens as currently understood by the word “marriage”?, and that word would be globally substituted for “marriage”? in all the statutes and regulations across the board - federal, state, local, what have you. Then all of the teeming hordes whose idea of marriage is based on their religion could keep that word for their religious commitment to their life partner, and everybody could go off and live their lives.
I was clearly talking about 2 people, irrespective of gender, and you choose to apply it solely to SSM. I was also clearly only talking about the legal definition of marriage, and what marriage is IN LAW, by using a different word in laws and statutes and saving the use of the word marriage solely for the religious context.
Please refrain from using mergerage to refer to SSM only, because that is not what I defined it to be when I made it up.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2005 at 10:47 am
On Lawn…even insisted that they would “defer to the dictionary”?.
You need to look up the purpose of quotation marks. When you put quotation marks around something you are attributing to someone else, it should actually be something that person said. On-Lawn’s actual quote was “I’ll defer to m-w.com for this one…” and that was in reference to the word “conflate.”
With regard to marriage and dictionaries, On Lawn said:
So you just wasted an entire post refuting a comment that On Lawn never made. Inventing quotes and attributing them to your opposition so you can then attack your own quotes is dishonest, and is properly referred to as a straw-man.
Now, On Lawn can, if they like, retract that comment and declare that they will not defer to the dictionary. But so long as On Lawn is deferring to the dictionary for the definition of marriage…
Since you made the comment, only you can retract it. Rather than a retraction, however, an apology would be more in order.
Kim -
I can imagine being pointed out as a bigot (moreso than a homophobe) causes you pain and anger…
Actually, while that may have been your intention, that is not the end result. All you have demonstrated is that your interest in SSM is more about causing hurt than in dealing rationally with the issue. You are so bent on hurting that you missed the oxy-moron I pointed to in your own stance, calling homosexuals homophobes, or saying they are bigoted against themselves.
As for what would have helped my husband as an adolescent, I’d have to say pretty firmly less bigotry.
It is unfortunate what your husband went through, and I truly wish people weren’t so bent on hurting others. This does not answer the question asked, however:
This comment was written by op-ed.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2005 at 11:02 am
Lee,
I was clearly talking about 2 people, irrespective of gender, and you choose to apply it solely to SSM.
You chose to incorrectly apply it to marriage where it is an incomplete enumeration of attributes, a counterfeit.
However, as any imitation it shows two things; 1) what you think the real thing is, 2) what you are capable of immitating.
Or if it suits you better, it is the “common denominator” reasoning. The same reasoning used universally to hold back excellence in efforts to homogenize mediocrity.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2005 at 11:13 am
op-ed: Ah, fair point. If On Lawn is not deferring to the dictionary, but rather picking the definition they want from the dictionary, my second comment was a mistake. It’s a long thread: no need to get aggressive when people get mixed up as to who said what when. I acknowledge the mistake was mine.
On Lawn: You chose to incorrectly apply it to marriage where it is an incomplete enumeration of attributes, a counterfeit.
You choose to incorrectly deny the word to legal marriage, where the definition of legal marriage does not suit you. That is your choice: but a couple who are married in the Netherlands or in Canada or in the State of Massachusetts remain legally married, whether or no you throw around big words like “counterfeit”.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2005 at 11:18 am
Op-Ed;
Who specifically is SSM hurting and how?
As for the homophobe/homosexual connection, you’re being naive if you are attempting to portray a culture where homosexuals cannot be homophobic. Why do you think ex-gay’s occur? Homosexuals can be some of the most dangerous of the bigots and homophobes. If you need a context, see the editorial by P-A on the Josh, the homosexual young man forced into the Love Incorporated camp, led by an ex-gay militant christian that has proclaimed he’d rather see kids commit suicide than choose the path of homosexuality. While it may seem ironic, it’s certainly not an oxymoron. Discrimination knows no boundries.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2005 at 11:21 am
That is your choice: but a couple who are married in the Netherlands or in Canada or in the State of Massachusetts remain legally married, whether or no you throw around big words like “counterfeit”?.
Such Dred Scott appologism exposes your interest in the legality.
However, his definition applied to the word “mergerage” which he acknowledged was a better term to use than marriage.
That same-sex impersonation of marriage has caused Mayors to violate the law and constitution, city counsils to meet in secret meetings to subvert the populace and judges to substantiate with kangaroo-courts (also subverting the populace) puts you in ver familiar company. But, in the end does in no wise substantiate a impersonation that grinds the faces of the children and handicapped.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2005 at 11:31 am
On Lawn, no, I wasn’t incorrectly applying mergerage as a counterfeit for marriage. I was observing that most of the problems in this debate appear to be arising from the application of the religious attributes of marriage to the legal attributes of marriage. If you insist on the LEGAL definition of marriage including the religious attributes of marriage, you just proved my point.
As a religious person of the Calvinist persuasion, I believe that marriage is a sacrament that celebrates the union of a man and a woman. However, that is my religious stance. As I also strongly support the separation of church and state, I believe that the purely secular interests of property rights, support of households, and inheritance should not be based on the religious beliefs of one segment of the population. Logically, then, a purely secular definition of marriage should be called something else. That does not make it counterfeit. Using a different word keeps the government out of my religion, and vice versa.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2005 at 11:35 am
On Lawn, no, I wasn’t incorrectly applying mergerage as a counterfeit for marriage.
Okay, you were correctly applying “mergerage” as a counterfiet for marriage.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2005 at 11:57 am
By the dictionary definition of counterfeit (which I just looked up), you appear to be implying that any mergerage (even one between a consenting adult man and a consenting adult woman) is of fraudulent intent. Open the gates a little, On Lawn, and actually read the posts, not just the little snatches you seem to be getting through your arrowslits. I notice you totally ignored my separation of church and state argument. Are you a closet theocrat? That would definitely explain a lot!
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2005 at 12:08 pm
you appear to be implying that any mergerage (even one between a consenting adult man and a consenting adult woman) is of fraudulent intent.
Correction: Mergerage passed off as the same as marriage is counterfeit.
You can sign my name to a document, that is counterfeiting my signature. I can sign my name and it is not.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
It’s quite simple. On Lawn believes that the only vital part of any definition of marriage is that it be 1man1woman. Everything else surrounding that is merely protocol. Legal status of spouses as owner/property or not, restrictions based on consanguinity, age restrictions, children or not - all of that is, if not irrelevant, merely garnish on the public recognition of the 1man1woman relationship. On Lawn is, in essence, arguing only about the word “marriage,” and not the privileges conferred by legal recognition. Thus, to him, anything that is both not 1man1woman and not called “marriage” is a fraud.
If I’ve misinterpreted, please correct me.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2005 at 12:23 pm
On Lawn believes that the only vital part of any definition of marriage is that it be 1man1woman.
Only? Don’t be daft.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2005 at 12:30 pm
So you’re saying marriage defined is interpretive and fluid according to who is defining or interpreting?
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2005 at 12:37 pm
Well, correct me instead of winging insults. Remember the sentence at the end that asked you to correct me if I misinterpreted you? Or did you not read that far?
What else is vital to your definition of marriage? Or, hey! assume I’m daft. Why not? Spell out, in simple terms, what you believe the vital components of marriage are.
Is equality between spouses vital?
Is there any age limit (upper or lower) that is vital?
Are children vital?
Are limits by consanguinity vital?
Are there limits to how many husbands or wives there can be that are vital?
What, precisely, other than 1man1woman is in your definition of marriage that cannot be changed if you are to still call it marriage?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
Kim,
So you’re saying marriage defined is interpretive and fluid according to who is defining or interpreting?
Nice try.
Jake,
Remember the sentence at the end that asked you to correct me if I misinterpreted you?
And you were corrected. Its not the “only” important aspect of marriage. However, as a definition if incorporates the distinctiveness most relevant to expressing how same-sex couplings are simply imitations of the real thing.
To find those differences, you delve into the gender differences denoted by the definition. So, in other words, “Only? Don’t be daft”.
What else is vital to your definition of marriage?
Again, don’t be daft. I provided a definition from M-W. I am not Merriam, I am not Webster. Nor are they (as mythiago pointed out) politically motivated to prescribe what you mistakenly call “anti-equal” definitions.
One important aspect you will need to discover reality around you is to realize that its not a “he said, she said’ kind of world. There is much reality that is beyond interpretation.
Or, hey! assume I’m daft.
Or funnier yet, assume that you aren’t while reading your posts :)
–
Now I’m going to play rope and dope by answering your absolutist questions…
Is equality between spouses vital?
Equal representation from both sexes is crucial.
Is there any age limit (upper or lower) that is vital?
Lower age limit, definately. Often the lower limit addresses the procreative nature. Additionaly some places put a cognitive limit (maturity of mind) in their restrictions as being above just puberty.
Upper age limit? Our society is one that goes out of its way to overcome the infirmities of age. I for one agree to that.
Are children vital?
Nope, which is why they aren’t in the definition. However without the potential for creating children it is of no interest that I can tell of the state.
Are limits by consanguinity vital?
No, but for the sake of the children that could wind up deformed I believe such restrictions are warranted.
Are there limits to how many husbands or wives there can be that are vital?
This was already answered in post #148 and #154 (and quoted again later).
What, precisely, other than 1man1woman is in your definition of marriage that cannot be changed if you are to still call it marriage?
M-W.com definition lists three or four elements that distinguish a marriage from other institutions. I agreed with all of them.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
Based on On Lawn’s article at http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2005/05/is-marriage-discriminatory.html
the argument being put forward is that marriage is opposite sex only because only that combination ensures “the capacity or capabilities of the union to meet the responsibilities society expects from marriage.” In other words, marriage is OS only because it’s linked to procreation.
Incidentally, the correct definition of discrimination, not neccessarily the dictionary one, but the one widely used in human rights literature, is that discrimination occurs when people are treated differently on the basis of an irrelevant distinction, such as race, or when people are treated the same when they should be treated differently, as when no accommodation is made for the needs of the disabled. In the case of marriage, calling SSM discriminatory or segregationist represents either a failure to adequately recognise the sexuality of the individual involved or more perniciously to regard that distinction as immaterial or undeserving of respect.
Unless you can substantiate the argument that marriage is essentially connected to procreation, then your suggestion that one man one woman is the essence of marriage and all else is protocol simply doesn’t make sense. There are a whole load of problems with the procreative understanding of marriage (not least issues around infertility,) but perhaps most important is the instrumental conception of marriage you seem to be upholding- the idea that marriage is a device to fulfil certain social needs.
This comment was written by Tarn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
On Lawn:
Now I’m going to play rope and dope by answering your absolutist questions…
Just a note… The correct term is “rope-a-dope”. Coined by Muhammad Ali to describe his strategy in his victory over George Foreman.
Is equality between spouses vital?
Equal representation from both sexes is crucial.
Nice try. Is equality in rights, privileges & power between spouses vital? But you knew that is what the question referred to. But, in your attempt to cleverly play with words, you tripped yourself up - both between comments and in this last comment of yours.
On Lawn:
Polygamy is not a change in the definition of marriage, however. Polygamy means literally “many marriages”?. The existence of many wives is a result of there being more than one marriage.
You have no problem with polygamy, yet you define it as “many marriages” - as opposed to a single marriage. Yet this is not the way the word is commonly understood, nor does your precious M-W agree with you.
From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
Main Entry: po·lyg·a·my
Pronunciation: -mE
Function: noun
1 : marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time — compare POLYANDRY, POLYGYNY
2 : the state of being polygamous
Please note that the first definition is “marriage.” Singular, not plural. It does not say “many concurrent marriages by a single spouse.”
I also notice that you still do not answer the question simply or clearly. What is your definition of marriage? What parts of your definition cannot be changed if you still wish to call it a marriage?
I would also like to take this opportunity to point out something to you:
From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: ‘mer-ij, ‘ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
Look!!! There in the M-W dictionary. An accepted definition of marriage is the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.
Huh? How do you like that?
But seriously. Answer this question. What is your definition of marriage? What parts of your definition cannot be changed if you still wish to call it a marriage?
Must it be consensual to be a marriage? Must it be contractual?
As I see it, the definition that you are trying to foist on us is merely one half of one of 3 accepted definitions in M-W. And the other half of that definition includes SSM. Also, the half of a definition that you go by consists of 3 things - 1man1woman, consensual, contractual. Is that all that cannot be changed in the definition?
But, really. The source you’ve been quoting defines marriage as including SSM. Geeze.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2005 at 2:23 pm
Tarn,
the argument being put forward is that marriage is opposite sex only because only that combination ensures “the capacity or capabilities of the union to meet the responsibilities society expects from marriage.”? In other words, marriage is OS only because it’s linked to procreation.
Only? Don’t be daft.
As an aside. What about oversimplification is so attractive to Alasian’s, I wonder?
Incidentally, the correct definition of discrimination, not neccessarily the dictionary one
You’ll find that definition in the dictionary and addressed in the article. Indeed it supports establishes a key support in the basis of that commentary.
Unless you can substantiate
Agreed.
There are a whole load of problems with the procreative understanding of marriage (not least issues around infertility,)
There are a whole load of problems with the “infertility is an exeption that disproves the rule” reasoning of marriage. (see: Homosexuality is not a handicap, and part 2.)
Probably better put, and definately more succint is this gem from The 800lb Gorilla
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
Hey, what happened to the ordered list tags?
To see it properly formatted, one should follow the link. Sorry about that folks.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 9:57 am
Is equality in rights, privileges & power between spouses vital?
No.
You have no problem with polygamy, yet you define it as “many marriages”? - as opposed to a single marriage.
No problem with polygamy? You are assuming much. I have a problem with people being married more than once, but I don’t consider it as violating what a marriage is.
Yet this is not the way the word is commonly understood, nor does your precious M-W agree with you.
It sounds like you are interpretating “marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time” to be one marriage. If that were the case then M-W disagrees with itself when it says marriage is “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law” [emphasis mine].
As I pointed out previously, poly means “many” or “more than one” and “gamy” means marraige (which coincidentally comes from gamete, the same term that we use in biology to describe egg and sperm). If you really want to get technical, gamete means “mate” or a pair brought together to procreate.
Legally you will find that there is a licence or record of each seperate marriage in a polygamous family. Divorces do happen, and the whole family is not disolved, just the individual marriage.
Huh? How do you like that?
Sorry that makes me laugh. The irony of it being identified as a seperate usage is lost on you apparently. The fact that it has to be a seperate usage speaks more to what marriage is understood as than anything else. They really want to say marriage is just two people together, but not even the etymologists can stomach that. But since people call it marriage they have to include it as an anomoly of the last few miliseconds of history. I count it as an outlier.
So it seems suprising to you that I already acknowledged that definition? Go ahead, read comment #154 again.
Along a simular note, you’ll notice that I’ve been saying all along that the 1-man and 1-woman requirement is not the “only requirement”. Now you seem suprised to find that when I say there are three-four requirements (re: comment #200) that there really are. And somehow expect that I didn’t know that?
You’ve been so hell-bent on over-simplifying what I say that you have now cought yourself in guile.
I just keep laughing as you Alasians keep trying to bring up old things as if they are new. “Ha ha, gotcha!” you say. “No?” then “Ha ha Gotcha!”. Rinse repeat. Repetatively bringing up these things as if they are new speaks more to your intellect than any thing else that I’m aware of. In fact, repeating the same thing over and over again hoping for different results is a definition some people forward for, hmmm, what was that again? ;)
Jake you just have to keep up better.
But seriously. Answer this question. What is your definition of marriage?
Are you assuming my definition is different from what I quoted from M-W? No it is not.
Must it be consensual to be a marriage? Must it be contractual?
The consensual nature of marriage is very important. “Of your own free will and choice” is a part of marriage ceremonies throughout history. Does that mean non-consensual marriages are not marriages in my eyes?
Yes it does, but that doesn’t mean that courtship and absolute selection is required. Arranged marriages have the consent of the married, and where they do not I feel they are a violation of marriage.
Perhaps that is my liberal western eyes judging the situation though.
Contractual? Yes. Many people will write their own “vows”. Historically contracts would even divy up the expected labor and spoils. It looked much like a business contract. Thats just a historical note.
What the contract says is only important to the people involved, which is why your first question about “equity” is off-the-mark. The contract determines what both parties feel is equitable. That is a “free will and choice” expression of individualism. Any coersion that violates that, or subjugates someone (as in “against their will”) to terms of the contract are to me violations of marriage.
If you want to know better what my marriage means to me, and just how crucial the equal gender representation is, you can read Opine. As I’ve seen in so many other situations, what I say winds up being far more reasonable than what people say I say. But then ridicule and lies are how the malificent always try to discredit the truth.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 10:02 am
Your conception of marriage is a functionalist one- in the schema you propose marriage is a contract between an OS couple and the state premised on the state’s interest in the continuance of a particular vision of society and the social good. As your quote indicates, marriage is to be understood as primarily reproductively focused- it’s not a question of the desires of the couple, but what they can bring to the bargaining table in order to extract concessions\recognition from the state. In your model, SS couples can’t ante up the ability to reproduce (ignoring for a moment the existing children of SS couples) and so can’t cut the same deals as OS couples. Thus the salient characteristic that allows OS marriage but not SS marriage is the ability to reproduce (incidentally, the first paragraph of your quote illustrates this delightfully well.)
Further to my point above- On Lawn said:
“Nope, which is why they aren’t in the definition. However without the potential for creating children it is of no interest that I can tell of the state.”
Which demonstrates that the institution of marriage in your model is essentially a reproductive one- marriage is recognised by the state because there is the potential that the couple will reproduce. In effect marriage exists as an incentive scheme to ensure the creation of OS couples and maximise the chance of procreation and adequate child rearing. The state may have other interests in encouraging marriage, but the definitive one is reproductive.
There are myriad objections to the model of marriage as essentially procreative, but I’m only going to address one for the moment:
This comment was written by Tarn.Why, given that there are so many children being raised by SS couples, does the state not have an interest in promoting the welfare of those children in the same manner as it promotes the welfare of OS couple’s children? In other words, why doesn’t the state allow SS couples to marry, given that the reality of the situation is that SS couples are carrying out the activity that the state is supposedly so invested in encouraging?
Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 10:04 am
On Lawn, I just re-read post #154, and it does not validate your argument. Many words in the dictionary have multiple meanings or multiple nuances to their meanings, so for you to declare that only one of the definitions to be the valid is disingenuous at best.
Amp, can we have the Troll Song now?
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 10:06 am
Equal gender representation being crucial is hardly a reality, it’s an opinion.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 10:36 am
Dance, dance, dance!
On Lawn, do you want to respond to the allegation that the definition you “quoted” from m-w was deceitful? Remember, what you keep quoting is merely the first half of the first definition of marriage in m-w.
Do you want to respond to the argument that if, as you have insisted, we take the dictionary (m-w in particular) as the one true definer of marriage, that we must accept SSM?
Why can’t you just admit that you have a definition of marriage that is far from universal and nothing else is acceptable to you?
You can’t have it both ways - insisting that the first 1/2 of the first definition of marriage is the only definition of marriage (it’s in the dictionary after all!) while insisting that the dictionary is wrong about the definition of polygamy. But that is a perfect example of what your comments on this thread have been - two-faced, full of double standards, murky, obfuscating, bizarrely condescending, dissembling and outright deceitful.
As I’ve seen in so many other situations, what I say winds up being far more reasonable than what people say I say.
You’ve had ample opportunity to answer simple and direct questions on this thread. You have refused to do so. That leaves us to interpret your attempts to slyly sidestep the questions you have been asked. The fault for this, if it is true, is squarely on you.
Be a decent human being and debate your side on the (questionable) merits of your argument as correctly identified by Tarn. You know - marriage is about reproduction. Do you refuse to do that because you can’t marshall logic and facts to back up your opinion? Do you refuse to argue your case because all the points you have have been amply refuted? Or do you refuse to do that because you would prefer to troll?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 11:30 am
Tarn,
I appreciate your genuine attempt to understand my position. It displays maturity and a sense of confidence that is most refreshing here.
As your quote indicates, marriage is to be understood as primarily reproductively focused- it’s not a question of the desires of the couple
Only, I don’t see reproductive resonsibility and the desires of the couple as a dillema of opposing forces. They work together, and if they work apart, no amount of marriage or ceremony will fix that.
but what they can bring to the bargaining table in order to extract concessions\recognition from the state
Oh, I see. You must be getting that from where I say that romantic desires are something that the state shouldn’t regulate, although encouraging responsible conjugation by encouraging marriage is socially wise. It is the state’s responsibility for citizens (which are created in heterosexual relationships exclusively) that the state takes interest in.
I don’t know if that fits your re-telling or not. I can see where it does and I can see where it doesn’t.
Thus the salient characteristic that allows OS marriage but not SS marriage is the ability to reproduce
I’ll add a correction to that also, it is the ability to foster responsibility in procreation. People outside of marriage can procreate, and without the commitment and recognition of roles (i.e. consent and contract) it is in no wise responsible.
Same Sex couples do not have a means of responsible procreation available to them. At best they can play a shell game that has many dangerous elements to both children in encouraging an “unwanted baby” industry and the handicapped who’s resources are now pillaged to pander the aformentioned gender segregationism. Not to mention how their practice of gender segregation not only robs children of a mother or father for selfish bigoted reasons.
Again, I can see where what I say matches and doesn’t match which is why I provide a more specific quote.
Why, given that there are so many children being raised by SS couples, does the state not have an interest in promoting the welfare of those children in the same manner as it promotes the welfare of OS couple’s children?
Oddly enough, research bears out that marriage is a fragile thing. Once a family is shattered it is not put back together — not even by re-marriage. A single-parent family statistically looks pretty identical to step-parenting when viewing the social viability of children. Only the step-parent model increases dramatically a childs risk of molestation by either step-siblings or step-parents. Add to that the increased occurance of molestation among homosexuals.
In other words, marriage is not a bandaige. It works as a way to ensure people do it right the first time. It doesn’t seem to work very well at all as a way to mend the needs of the single parent.
Adoption works a bit differently, but has many of the same dangers.
You may wish to read this article. Its brief and too the point, but as far as pointing out marriage I think he does a top-notch job and addresses some of these points from a different perspective.
–
Lee,
Jake already graced us with a song and dance about his desires to be snarky.
Beyond that I’m not sure where you are getting what you are saying.
–
Jake,
Remember, what you keep quoting is merely the first half of the first definition of marriage in m-w.
I quoted definition “1″ usage “a.1″ in its entirety as it is the primal definition of “marriage”. Usage “a.2″ is specifically denoted as a different usage to encompass “same-sex marriage” as (and I quote) “a relationship like that of a traditional marriage” or usage “1.a.1″. Usage “1.b” and usage “1.c” on definition one amount to different ways to reference marriage as either a specific union or the institution, and as such are self-referencial to the usages denoted in “1.a.1″.
So you want a troll song or a junior-high school teacher to help you understand how to read a dictionary (which is something you shouldn’t have left the 7th grade without.) The first will help console your ignorance, the second will cure it.
while insisting that the dictionary is wrong about the definition of polygamy
Inconsistency is the hobgoblin of the simple mind. The hogboglin is your own creating because you took polygamy to mean everyone is encompassed in one marriage (re: “1.a.1″). It is the definition and usage you say that the definition of polygamy directly contradicts, but that is a misaplication on your part. Marriage as denoted by usage “1.b” is the correct usage in the definition you cited and does not conflict with what I’ve been quoting. M-W is not contradicting itself.
Yes, all this confusion you have and these spurious allogations could have been avoided has you not been so simple-minded.
You’ve had ample opportunity to answer simple and direct questions on this thread. You have refused to do so.
You have me laughing again. Not every question is asked to gain understanding, and not every loaded question deserves an answer. Many questions are built on false premises and cannot be accurately answered. However if there is a question you feel I haven’t answered then feel free to point it out. We will discuss where I answered it or why I didn’t. But don’t just make accusations like that unsupported, its disengenious.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 11:39 am
On Lawn, from the article you referenced in your post #210,
“America is big enough to play host to different ideologies. For example, US regulations define multiple categories of food, including “dolphin-safe,” “organic,” “halal,” “kosher,” and another kosher-like category for a different Jewish group whose rabbis defined Kosher differently. The idea is that when you create a different category, you give the category a different name. You don’t need to overwrite one set of criteria that has one purpose, with a different set of criteria with a different purpose. If some reform or renewal Jewish rabbis decide they want certain types of bacon cheesburgers to be “Kosher,” it would be wrong for them to pressure the courts to change an existing category. They should ask instead for a new category in order to protect food labeling for their own group.”
Do you disagree with this paragraph? You seem to feel this article expresses your views from a different angle.
If you agree with this paragraph, then what is your problem with mergerage?
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 11:53 am
If you agree with this paragraph, then what is your problem with mergerage?
That argument you reference is one of the dangers of conflation. It denotes the need for distinction so that accurate representation of the package is provided.
I can’t say for sure, but were “mergerage” to try to call a gender segregationist couple and a couple that practiced gender integration the same name, with all the differences between man-man and woman-woman (let alone the differences of those two with man-woman) it would be as bad as calling all tuna “dolphin safe” because not all the nets killed dolphins.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 12:19 pm
Ah, I stand corrected. On Lawn quoted only definition 1 usage a1, while leaving out definition 1 usage a2. Deceit by any little nitpick with being called on it is still deceit. Or do you only accept 1 usage a1 as valid for all other words defined in the dictionary?
Wait, I take it back. On Lawn is entirely wrong in his claim that we were quoting usages. The only usages in the m-w definition of marriage is in subsense 1a(2) and in sense 3 (as denoted by being enclosed in angle brackets).
Are you sure you understand how to read a dictionary? I went and looked at the m-w notes on how to read definitions & I find that your claim of quoting the usage is incorrect. What you quoted is, indeed, the first half of the first definition or sense. 1a(1) is not, in fact, a usage. It is a sense. I refer you to http://www.m-w.com/help/dictnotes/def.htm so that you can learn for yourself how to read a dictionary. So, 1a(2) is also a sense and not a usage. You may also want to note that senses are listed in historical order, not order of authority or commonness. So, sense 1a(2) is not lesser than or diminished in any way by sense 1a(1), it merely came into use later.
Your self-assumed mantle authority continues to diminish as you continue to dissemble, misdirect & lie. Next time you want to be an authority on a subject with which you are not intimately familiar, you may want to research it first to make sure that your understanding is correct.
Your response on your inconsistency with regards to polygamy consists of obfuscating wordplay that does nothing to support your assertion. That seems to be a defining trait of your comments.
Now do go on, please. You get more and more entertaining as you talk down to others while spouting your own silly brand of pseudo-authoritative nonsense.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 12:20 pm
On Lawn, just so I’m sure I’m understanding you correctly: if I were to come up with another word that would be used solely for same-sex unions consisting of 2 people, you would have no problem with that because it’s not called marriage?
OK, for the sake of continuing discussion, I will make up such a word: weddage. A weddage from henceforth shall be a union of 2 human beings of the same gender, in a relationship that would be called marriage if they were of the opposite sex.
Now we add this word to all the statutes and regulations covering marriage, and voila, we have secular and legal recognition of same-sex relationships.
I can even write to the good people at Mirriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary to suggest adding this word to their next editions.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 1:01 pm
On Lawn quoted only definition 1 usage a1, while leaving out definition 1 usage a2.
As a reading of comment #154 shows usage 1.a.2 was referenced. Its existance was never “hidden” or unacknowledged. You are simply suffering still from your simplemindedness to say that it was “left out”.
The reason for quoting just one usage was provided previously, and I will quote again because repetative argumentation seems all the rage on this site:
In essence, the other usages only referenced the first. The usage you are trying to play off of is acknowldeged specifically as an attempt to pass off same-sex couples as married.
So, 1a(2) is also a sense and not a usage
Hmmm interesting. Actually sense and usage denote the same thing in this case, but thanks for playing :)
Your self-assumed mantle authority continues to diminish as you continue to dissemble, misdirect & lie.
My my, your commentary waxes accusatorial. Big suprise. :)
Your response on your inconsistency with regards to polygamy consists of obfuscating wordplay that does nothing to support your assertion.
First you attempted to say M-W contradicted with myself. Then when I showed that it was your over-reaching interpretation that produced the conflict you tried to claim it was a self-contradiction.
Surely your attempts to re-write history expose where the lying and deciept actually are ;)
But we can all celebrate that you gave it an honest try.
–
Lee,
Actually I was thinking about this yesterday. I wrote this in the comments section of that article you quoted:
Be sure to include the GLBT in your campaign.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
Hmmm interesting. Actually sense and usage denote the same thing in this case, but thanks for playing :)
Are you lying or just stupid? Oh, sorry. Loaded question. Sense and usage are not the same thing. Read the notes on how to read definitions. Sense (or subsense) is a definiton. Usage is an example.
I quoted definition “1″³ usage “a.1″³ in its entirety as it is the primal definition of “marriage”?.
Then you are using the dictionary incorrectly. Let me repeat this for you since you seem to have missed it last time around: You may also want to note that senses are listed in historical order, not order of authority or commonness. And I’ll add that the senses are listed in historical order and not in order of primacy as you are incorrectly stating is the case.
The usage you are trying to play off of is acknowldeged specifically as an attempt to pass off same-sex couples as married.
Ah, I see. The dictionary is trying to fool all of us by having SSM as part of the valid definition of SSM. Those sneaky bastards! But of course, you are lying here too. Nowhere in the definition does it say that SSM is “an attempt to pass off same-sex couples as married.”
Let’s read it again, shall we?
(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
(Before we continue, please note that “(2)…” is a sense and “” is a usage. Can you tell the difference between the two? Can you tell why that difference is significant? Good. Let’s continue.)
This subsense, (2), does not acknowledge an attempt to pass off yada, yada, yada. It acknowledges the relationship to which it refers as marriage. What part of this are you not capable of comprehending? This is why you are rightfully identified as a troll.
But I do need to thank you for getting me to read the notes on how to read a dictionary. I learned something new. And if you’ve read what I’ve written about how to read a dictionary entry (sense, subsense, usage), you have learned something new, too.
But think of it, that meets the model of the idealic same-sex coupling who left marriages with their kids and are now hoping for some kind of government validation and assistance.
Damn. Ignorant and bigoted much? Do you actually know any same-sex couples? This is just translated from the whole, “lazy people on welfare taking our money,” nonsense. Oh, and the word for which you were so inexpertly groping in that quote is “idyllic.” Unless you mean “ideal.” In either case, that is an invention of your imagination.
To review a few of your more notable mistakes:
Rope-a-dope, not rope and dope
This comment was written by Jake Squid.sense and usage are two entirely seperate things
SSM is a valid definition (or sense) of marriage according to m-w
idyllic or ideal, not idealic
The first sense listed in an entry in a dictionary does not have primacy over subsequent senses or subsenses according to the notes on how to read an entry over at m-w.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 1:39 pm
looks like I left some bolding open did that fix it?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 1:43 pm
Oooh, it lost my example of a usage because it was in angle brackets.
the words “same-sex marriage” should be in those empty quotes and should be surrounded by angle brackets in paragraph 9.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
Sense and usage are not the same thing. Read the notes on how to read definitions. Sense (or subsense) is a definiton. Usage is an example.
Sure, feel free to substitute “usage” with “sense”. As I was pointing out, my use of “usage” denotes the same thing that they describe as a “sense”. They are still just different manifestations of the same concept, though you are correct in pointing out that is a dangerous conflation that may impede understanding.
To review a few of your more notable mistakes
Apparently you feel I need an editor for posting. I’m currently taking resume’s :)
Seriously though the past day or so I’ve been staving off some stomach virus.
But even then I like to fill my posts with gramatical errors so people who have nothing to complain about logically can show it by complaining about syntax ;)
You may also want to note that senses are listed in historical order, not order of authority or commonness.
Hence my use of the term “primal”. Also seemingly absent in your “epiphany” of dictionary scholarship is how the 1.a.2 references 1.a.1. That puts quite a bit of the heavy lifting on the first usage.
Its great that you are learning how to use the dictionary however.
And I’ll add that the senses are listed in historical order and not in order of primacy
Alright, you asked for it…
Just more hobgoblins for your simple mind I presume, but primal means *both* historic order and importance. Both are present in that definition, as pointed out previously how 1.a.2 references 1.a.1.
Your reaching for these false dillemas like so many straws is entertaining though. I wonder when you’ll get around to defending your position :)
This subsense, (2), does not acknowledge an attempt to pass off yada, yada, yada. It acknowledges the relationship to which it refers as marriage.
I’m sorry, but that aroused quite a bit of chuckling too. You are trying hard, really really hard here. But you are looking more like a slapstick comedy of errors.
So, you tell is that it does not acknowledge an attempt to pass off, what was that again? “Yada Yada Yada”? You can’t even put a real quote there for fear of directly exposing your fallacy. Lets do that and see what we have.
Like I said, a false dillema of a simple mind.
And if you’ve read what I’ve written about how to read a dictionary entry (sense, subsense, usage), you have learned something new, too.
It was interesting.
It is good to use the same words M-W uses for the same reason ;)
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 4:15 pm
Jake -
Rather than spending your last several hundred lines of obtuse prose attempting to accuse On Lawn of deceipt, perhaps you should have spent the time reading what he originally said. I’ll bold the important part so you don’t miss it this time:
Nowhere did On Lawn attempt to portray his quote as the only definition included on m-w.com. Further, he even called out the fact that an alternate definition could be found there that covered same-sex marriage. Including every possible definition in every possible dictionary would not have answered the request for On Lawn’s definition of marriage and so would have been a nonsensical reply. All you have spent your time doing is demonstrating that you lack either the cognitive skills or the integrity to be taken seriously in this debate.
Lee -
I have nothing against the state recognizing same-sex unions, so long as it does so on their own merits. Basing the treatment of group A on the needs of group B isn’t just or fair to either group. The state recognizes all kinds of institutions that are not procreative, but only recognizes one, marriage, by its procreative potential.
The state regulates and recognizes in addition to marriage all kinds of institutions, for example, hospitals and casinos. Neither is a procreative organization yet nobody who supports marriage has a problem with the state recognizing either. The state has its purpose in recognizing these institutions and it bases its treatment of them on that purpose. It makes no sense for a casino to say it should have ambulances to bring in customers just because hospitals do. Even more ridiculous would be for hospitals to call themselves marriages or to insist they be treated like them.
Hospitals and casinos don’t feel compelled to compare themselves to marriage or each other because they are confident in their own purpose to society. While I am willing to believe that you, Ampersand, and the other commentors in this blog are well intentioned, when you attempt to quash discussion about the purpose of same-sex couples with a transparently false equality argument, you convey the message that you doubt the ability of same-sex couples to stand on their own merits.
This comment was written by op-ed.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 5:56 pm
On Lawn Writes: Such Dred Scott appologism exposes your interest in the legality.
What on earth has Dred Scott to do with anything?
And how is it “apologism” to point out the simple fact that a same-sex couple who are married in the Netherlands or in Canada or in the State of Massachusetts - and soon, in Spain - remain legally married, whether or no you throw around big words like “counterfeit”??
However, his definition applied to the word “mergerage”? which he acknowledged was a better term to use than marriage.
This is just bewildering. “Mergerage” is not a word. The fact is, same-sex marriage exists - whether you like it or not.
That same-sex impersonation of marriage has caused Mayors to violate the law and constitution, city counsils to meet in secret meetings to subvert the populace and judges to substantiate with kangaroo-courts (also subverting the populace) puts you in ver familiar company.
Exactly how has legislation in Europe, in Canada, or in Massachusetts, “caused” any of that? Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands, in Canada, in the State of Massachusetts, is not an “impersonation” of marriage: it is simply legal marriage. You may object to the fact that it exists, but to claim that it doesn’t is lunacy.
But, in the end does in no wise substantiate a impersonation that grinds the faces of the children and handicapped.
Now you’re just being silly. As previously stated, legal marriage is legal marriage, whether you like it or not: not an “impersonation”. And it’s impossible to see how legal marriage can be said to “grind the faces of the children” or “the handicapped”. Are you just being absurd for the sake of it?
Seriously, trying to argue that same-sex marriage shouldn’t exist is tough enough when it already exists in three countries, where the direct legal equivalent in the form of civil partnership or civil union exists in many more, and has done for years, without any noticeable detriment to any social institutions, including mixed-sex marriage.
But trying to argue that it doesn’t exist is definitely a losing wicket. Don’t even try.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 7:55 pm
Jesurgislac:
a same-sex couple who are married in the Netherlands or in Canada or in the State of Massachusetts - and soon, in Spain - remain legally married
You’re kidding. You’re really trotting out the “but everybody else is doing it” defense? I guess I shouldn’t really be surprised.
Exactly how has legislation in Europe, in Canada, or in Massachusetts, “caused”? any of that?
Legislation in Canada and Massachusetts. That’s rich. And the only nation in Europe that legislated same-sex marriage also legislated prostitution and recreational drugs. I suppose those behaviors have no noticeable negative impact on families, either. In contrast to your fictional “legislation,” On Lawn’s account of the illicit tactics that have been the hallmark of the ssm campaign is quite factual.
…and has done for years, without any noticeable detriment to any social institutions, including mixed-sex marriage.
No noticeable positive impact, you mean.
This comment was written by op-ed.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 8:17 pm
You’re really trotting out the “but everybody else is doing it”? defense?
Uh, no. He’s trotting out the “your definition is factually incorrect” defense.
Repeatedly posting op-ed pieces as evidence isn’t exactly persuasive.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 8:40 pm
Op-ed: I have nothing against the state recognizing same-sex unions, so long as it does so on their own merits . Basing the treatment of group A on the needs of group B isn’t just or fair to either group. The state recognizes all kinds of institutions that are not procreative, but only recognizes one, marriage, by its procreative potential.
By your argument, any man-woman marriage where at least one member of the couple is sterile would not be recognized by the state. And I’ve read some of the statutes where marriage is defined, and none of the ones I’ve read mention the potential for the partners to conceive and bear a child of their own as part of the definition. I guess it sounds kinda crazy to go back to basics like this, but it isn’t in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, or Magna Carta, either.
Bottom line, your procreative potential argument is a sneaky way of insinuating your religious views into the secular law. If permanent relationships between 2 consenting adult humans were silverware, you would be maintaining that only stainless steel spoons are legal, and while, sure, forks and knives exist, they can’t legally be recognized as silverware because they can’t scoop. Meanwhile, you ignore all the plastic and sterling silver spoons and ladles, because, well, they look like spoons even if they aren’t stainless steel.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 2:38 am
Op-ed: You’re kidding. You’re really trotting out the “but everybody else is doing it”? defense? I guess I shouldn’t really be surprised.
No: pay attention. I am pointing out, contrary to On Lawn’s assertions, that same-sex marriage already exists. On Lawn seems to be playing with the notion that it doesn’t or it can’t.
On Lawn’s account of the illicit tactics that have been the hallmark of the ssm campaign is quite factual.
Hardly. On Lawn doesn’t seem to have the least idea of how same-sex marriage came to exist in the Netherlands, in Belgium (I’ve been looking it up - same-sex marriage exists in more countries than I realized), in Canada, and soon in Spain. None. On Lawn does seem to have a very fuzzy idea about Massachusetts, though the description of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts as a “kangaroo court” seems to be a little sour-grapesy.
I do recall the beautiful weeks of San Francisco when so many same-sex couples went there to be married, but your description of them as “illicit tactics” ignores the grand tradition in the US of non-violent civil protest. It was a very splendid demonstration of how much so many same-sex couples want to be married - and how unpleasant the anti-same-sex marriage bigots can make themselves when opposing this desire for equal civil rights. It is, of course, a civil rights matter, and must be finally decided in the courts or by the legislature: as seems usual in the US, with the courts determining that the discrimination against same-sex couples is not legal, and the legislature following through eventually.
No noticeable positive impact, you mean.
No. I meant what I said. Exactly what I said. Same-sex civil partnership as directly equivalent to marriage has been modernly recognised since 1989: same-sex marriage has been modernly recognised since 2000. The positive impact has, of course, simply been equality under the law: justice is in itself a positive thing. No negative impact has been noted.
In the long run, no one will understand why so many people in the US were so scared of same-sex marriage, just as even now people from other military forces find it hard to comprehend why the American military is so scared of having openly gay people serving. Just as once, people in the US protested the advent of “mixed race marriages”, and the first ever interracial kiss on TV was a big deal, and now no one can quite see what the fuss was about. So it will go with the US military, which can hardly afford to go on sacking good soldiers who happen to be gay, and so it will go with same-sex marriage: the US really can’t afford to consistently discriminate against lawfully-married couples just because they are a same-sex couple.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 8:48 am
Lee -
By your argument, any man-woman marriage where at least one member of the couple is sterile would not be recognized by the state.
False. There is no requirement that the state adopt whatever test for procreative potential you happen to imagine. As I have dealt with this numerous times in the past I’ll just quote what I’ve already said:
Bottom line, your procreative potential argument is a sneaky way of insinuating your religious views into the secular law.
Exactly what are my religious views? You tilt at windmills. Deal with the arguments presented. As I have said before:
If permanent relationships between 2 consenting adult humans were silverware…
They are not, and neither are spoons knives. You accept by premise the notion that “marriage” is nothing more than a Hallmark greeting card from the state congratulating two people for being in love. That is begging the question. It is precisely this watering down of marriage that I am objecting to. Procreation and the responsible exercise thereof is of profound import to the state. You want the state to ignore the impact of irresponsible procreation, taking that capacity out of the definition of marriage so you can turn marriage into some sort of indication of approbation of feelings. Again, as I have said before:
This comment was written by op-ed.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 8:57 am
It is precisely this watering down of marriage that I am objecting to.
You’re a few decades too late.
If you really want a solid foundation for preventing SSM, you’ll want states to change their laws back to a traditional definition of marriage: re-introducing laws requiring couples to affirm their ability to procreate, an irrebuttable presumption of paternity within marriage, criminalizing adultery, and so on.
Then SSM challenges will fail because you will be able to point to a rock-solid “goverment purpose” of marriage = procreation.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 9:05 am
Op-ed, you are so eloquent, it makes me want to cry. But you’re chopping logic using the wrong tools.
Op-ed: Same-sex partners want to marginalize the commitment to my children with a definition of marriage as simply an acknowledgement that my wife and I love each other. Inviting government to take an interest in my feelings for my wife opens up a Pandora’s box of unprecedented government intrusiveness. The fact that government has had no interest in feelings to date is reflected by the fact that the word “love”? is not in current marriage law anywhere. Even when two people are divorcing they cannot use a lack of love as grounds.
I never said the word “love” was in marriage laws, or that it was missing from marriage laws. I said “procreation” was not in the state law definition of marriage in the statutes I have read. You are the one using procreative potential as the litmus test for whether or not a marriage is valid, now you’re claiming I’m trying to use love. NOT.
Go away, troll.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 9:37 am
Gay marriage was made legal in all of Canada yesterday.
:)
This comment was written by Samantha.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 11:47 am
Lee -
Op-ed, you are so eloquent, it makes me want to cry.
Thanks.
I said “procreation”? was not in the state law definition of marriage in the statutes I have read.
Nor need it be, as the laws are intended to delineate treatments, not purposes. Proscriptions on who may marry, such as preventing consanguine marriages, can be easily understood by referring to the procreative potential of marriage. They are not explainable at all given your redefinition of marriage as “permanent relationships between 2 consenting adult humans.” Consanguine relationships are every bit as permanent, every bit as consenting, and every bit as adult as same-sex relationships.
The state has a purpose in recognizing the procreative potential of a man-woman union, as I have pointed out and you have not contested that fact. In proposing the state discard its current institution of marriage and replace it with your “permanent relationships between 2 consenting adult humans,” you have a twofold burden of proof you cannot meet:
1) What purpose does it serve for the state to take notice of “permanent relationships between 2 consenting adult humans?”
2) Why must the state abandon its interest in responsible procreation?
There are lots of “permanent relationships between 2 consenting adult humans” that I participate in that the state has no need of recognizing, even relationships involving children. For example, my relationship between me and a godparent of my child is quite permanent, involves 2 consenting adults, and benefits my child. Yet I see no purpose in having the state recognize that relationship, regulate it, or substitute that relationship for marriage.
It is time you admit that your redefinition, “permanent relationships between 2 consenting adult humans,” is merely your attempt to seek the lowest common denominator between man-woman and same-sex pairings, and is not driven by some actual societal interest.
mythago -
You’re a few decades too late.
Whatever violence has been perpetrated on marriage in the past is no justification for further violence upon it now. Saying I must either accept SSM or onerous government intrusion into marriage is a false dilemma and simply an attempt by you to poison the well.
This comment was written by op-ed.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
Op Ed: Proscriptions on who may marry, such as preventing consanguine marriages, can be easily understood by referring to the procreative potential of marriage.
Actually, they’re rather more easily understood by referring to the incest taboo. I think you will find that most people would regard the idea of two brothers having sex together as taboo as a brother and a sister having sex together - or father-son incest as taboo as father-daughter. It is sex itself that is taboo for close relatives, not procreation, and how “close” the relative is before it’s taboo varies considerably by culture and tradition.
Your introduction of incest and non-sexual relationships as an equivalent to same-sex marriage is a particularly bizarre red herring. Is there really nothing you won’t stoop to?
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 1:48 pm
Sorry Jesu, same-sex impersonation of marriage exists. Its even recognized in many countries. But I can no more celebrate it than share the enthusiasm of plantation owners who convince the state to recognize other people as their property.
BTW, the incest taboo is the same thing. Calling something by a different name does not change what it is any more than trying to call something the same name.
In future years same-sex marriage will be seen with abortion and slavery as some of the most selfish attempts to subjugate another segment of the population every condoned by the state.
In the end its all a matter of the Emperor has no clothes, and you refuse to see that.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 1:50 pm
You said this to Lee, though I’m going to address it in a more general sense. Advocates of SSM aren’t advocating marriage as a Hallmark card acknowledging love. They are advocating for the stability that marriage provides among intentional communities of adults, and more specifically unions between adults. Creating a society that supports and bolsters actions which stabilize our communities is really a no-brainer, and as much as you’d like to include children as an inherent part of the mix, they are not inherent to the notion of or action of marriage. Laws addressing children are seperate from marriage laws with good reason.
Samantha;
On the canada gay marriage issue, I’m going to be blogging on that later today unless Amp beats me to it.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
They are advocating for the stability that marriage provides among intentional communities of adults
Don’t be disengenious. Marriage no more provides stability to homosexuals than a bandaid provides stability to the WTC.
This comment was written by On Lawn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
On Lawn: Sorry Jesu, same-sex impersonation of marriage exists. Its even recognized in many countries. But I can no more celebrate it than share the enthusiasm of plantation owners who convince the state to recognize other people as their property.
God, that’s disgusting. Truly, really, disgusting. Now you are comparing same-sex marriage to slavery? That is vile.
In future years same-sex marriage will be seen with abortion and slavery as some of the most selfish attempts to subjugate another segment of the population every condoned by the state.
And that’s just bizarre. I mean, seriously surreal. To claim that granting equal civil rights to same-sex couples is “subjugating another segment of the popultation” doesn’t even make sense - it’s just… bizarre.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
Here are a few ways that marriage provides stability to same-sex couples (not a complete list):
Inheritance law
All next-of-kin related privileges (medical decisions, etc.)
Access to health insurance
Access to retirement related funds
Legally recognized parenthood
Denying that marriage provides stability to couples of any gender combination is ridiculous on its face.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 2:27 pm
/agree Jake.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 2:27 pm
Jesurgislac -
On Lawn doesn’t seem to have the least idea of how same-sex marriage came to exist in the Netherlands, in Belgium (I’ve been looking it up - same-sex marriage exists in more countries than I realized), in Ca